Update field group

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

The description reveals no behavioral details beyond the action itself. It doesn't explain whether the update is a partial or full replacement, what happens to omitted fields, or the response format. The annotations (openWorldHint, idempotentHint) provide only minimal context and no contradiction, but the description fails to add meaningful transparency.

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 description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and clearly names the resource. While it could be more informative, it is appropriately sized for a simple statement.

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?

The description is grossly inadequate for this tool's complexity: it fails to explain the entity_type parameter (which accepts one of five enums), the group object structure, or the update semantics. With no output schema and only minimal annotations, the agent is left without critical context.

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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description needed to explain the parameters. It only mentions 'by ID', giving minimal semantics for the id parameter. The entity_type and group parameters are completely undocumented, leaving the agent to guess their purpose and structure.

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 'Edit a field group by ID' uses a clear verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling create/delete/get tools. However, it lacks specificity about the entity_type scoping and what edits are possible, so it doesn't fully rise to a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like the entity_type requirement or that the field group must already exist. Usage must be inferred from the tool's name and sibling context.

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