update_address_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that 'members replaces the whole member list' — a real mutation-behavior detail — but says nothing about required permissions, whether the update is partial or full for other fields, idempotency, or error behavior on missing groups.

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?

Two terse sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the replacement-semantics caveat immediately after. No wasted words.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits permission/auth requirements, how 'extra' attributes interact with the request, and VDOM scoping behavior. The rich schema compensates for parameter documentation, but behavioral completeness is only minimally adequate.

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 100%, so the schema already documents name, vdom, extra, comment, and members (including 'Complete new member list'). The description's note on members adds emphasis but not meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an address group'), which is clear and distinct from sibling operations like create_address_group or delete_address_group. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, so differentiation relies on the agent reading the name.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., use create_address_group for new groups). The only contextual hint is the replacement semantics of members, which is about mechanics rather than usage selection.

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