evolution_group_update_participant

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as authorization requirements, error handling, idempotency, or effects of partial failures. The mutation nature is implied but not elaborated.

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 immediately communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary detail. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should compensate by explaining expected results or behaviors. It fails to mention success/failure signals, rate limits, or admin requirements, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture for a moderately complex operation.

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%, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The description merely lists actions that are already enumerated in the schema's 'action' parameter. Baseline of 3 applies as no extra value.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs (add, remove, promote, demote) and the resource (group participants). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like evolution_group_participants (which likely fetches participants) by implying mutation rather than retrieval.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as evolution_group_participants for viewing or evolution_group_create for new groups. It also lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., admin privileges) or which action to choose in different scenarios.

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