contacts_group_update

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only indicates mutation via 'update', but omits details like required permissions, whether the operation is reversible, error conditions (e.g., missing group), or return value. The API method in parentheses adds little for behavioral insight.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the core action. It includes the API endpoint for reference, adding slight overhead but no waste. Could be improved by incorporating more context without sacrificing brevity.

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 no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain prerequisites, effects, or failure scenarios. For a simple update tool, it's minimally functional but lacks context to ensure correct agent behavior, especially when compared to richer sibling descriptions.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3 without improvement.

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 'Update a contact group name', identifying the specific action and resource. The schema confirms it only updates the name, providing clarity. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like contacts_group_modify_members, but the verb 'update' combined with 'name' sufficiently distinguishes it from other group actions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there is no mention that to modify members one should use contacts_group_modify_members, or that contacts_update is for individual contacts, not groups. The agent is left to infer context from the name alone.

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