update_dashboard_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description's mention of 'requires write permission' adds a small amount of context about authorization. However, it does not disclose what happens to child groups if parent_id is changed, whether the update is partial or full replacement, or any side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 short sentence that is easy to parse and front-loads the action. It is appropriately concise, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 simple update tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling update_* tools, and it does not mention any behavioral nuances like whether parent_id changes cascade. Given the large sibling list, a bit more context would improve completeness.

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 all four parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as whether name and parent_id can be updated independently or if there are constraints on parent_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full burden.

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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('dashboard group'), which clearly identifies the operation. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like update_collector_group or update_device_group, but the resource name is unambiguous enough that an agent can infer the target.

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 implies usage by naming the resource and operation, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. The sibling list contains many update_* tools, so an agent would benefit from a note about when to choose this over update_dashboard or update_widget, but the current text leaves that to inference.

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