zda_update_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the action as 'update' (implying mutation) but does not disclose idempotency, side effects (e.g., overwriting entire group vs. partial update), required permissions, error behavior, or return value. The minimal description lacks critical behavioral context.

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 two sentences, front-loading the main action, and lists only essential details. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 mutates a Zendesk group and has three parameters (one nested object), the description is too sparse. It omits return format, error handling, how to construct the data object correctly, and whether require_confirm is needed. With no output schema, the agent has insufficient context to use the tool reliably.

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 input schema has 67% coverage (id and data described). The description adds value by listing common fields for the data parameter (name, description, default, is_public), which is not in the schema. However, it does not explain the require_confirm parameter or specify required vs. optional data fields.

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 explicitly states 'Update an existing Zendesk group,' providing a clear verb and resource. It lists common fields (name, description, default, is_public) which clarifies scope, but does not differentiate from other update tools for different Zendesk resources.

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 like zda_create_group or zda_delete_group. Prerequisites (e.g., having the group ID) are implied but not stated, and there is no mention of when an update is appropriate.

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