modx_update_resource_group

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does not say whether the update is a partial patch, whether omitted fields retain their values, whether the operation requires admin permissions, or whether it is reversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is clean and wastes no words, but its brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. It has no structure that conveys the scope, required fields, or side effects.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell what a successful update returns, what the required "id" refers to, or what happens to unspecified fields.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are two parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention either parameter. It gives no hint that "id" identifies the target group or that "name" is the only updatable field; it also does not clarify whether the update is partial. With no documentation in the schema, the description needed to compensate but did not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description has a clear verb and resource ("Update a resource group"), but it only restates the tool name and says nothing about what about the group is being updated. It does not distinguish this tool from its close siblings modx_create_resource_group, modx_delete_resource_group, or modx_get_resource_group.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description contains no guidance on when to use this tool or what alternatives exist. It does not mention that create/delete/get resource group are handled by sibling tools, and it does not state any prerequisites, such as the group already existing or the caller having the permissions required for the operation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.