modx_update_resourcegroup_access

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers almost nothing: it does not say whether unspecified fields are left untouched or reset (critical for a 5-param partial-update tool), what permissions are required, or whether the change is auditable or reversible. Only the bare fact of mutation and id-based targeting is conveyed.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with no padding and the identifying constraint front-loaded. However, its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing, so it does not earn a top score.

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 five undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition leaves everything an agent needs unanswered: partial-vs-full update semantics, parameter meanings, and the fact that a failed or successful call looks like. This is substantially inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description says nothing about policy, target, authority, principal, or their valid value ranges. These are numeric foreign-key style identifiers whose meaning is entirely opaque to a caller without documentation, and the description supplies none of it.

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 names a specific verb (Update) and resource (resource-group access ACL entry) and adds an identification key (by id), which cleanly separates it from the grant/revoke/list siblings in the same family. It falls short of 5 only because 'ACL entry' is jargon that is never unpacked.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of modx_grant_resourcegroup_access or modx_revoke_resourcegroup_access, nor on prerequisites such as an existing entry or required permissions. The agent must infer from the name alone that this modifies an existing ACL row rather than creating or removing one.

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