update_recipient_group

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description explicitly states 'requires write permission', which adds behavioral context about authorization beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like full replacement of recipients (but that is in the schema) or any rate limits. The permission note is a positive addition.

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 that front-loads the primary action and resource, and the permission requirement is included without unnecessary detail. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could arguably omit the parenthetical and still be clear. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity)Skip the rest of the sentence. The description clearly states the action and permission requirement, and the schema fully documents parameters. The output schema is absent, but this is a simple update tool where the return value is likely a standard success response. No major information is missing for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not explicitly describe parameters, but the schema itself already documents each parameter thoroughly, including the behavioral note that 'recipients' replaces the current set. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the extra credit reflects the schema's quality, not the description.

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 clearly states the action ('Update a recipient group') and the resource, and it is distinguishable from siblings like create_recipient_group and delete_recipient_group by the verb. The description includes a precise reference to the required write permission, adding context that is not just a restatement of 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?

The description implicitly indicates that the tool is for updating an existing group (as opposed to creating or deleting), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., must have the group_id) or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. The mention of write permission is a useful prerequisite but not a full guideline.

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