update_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, what happens to existing settings not mentioned, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 extremely concise - just 5 words plus a qualification. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. However, the extreme brevity comes at the cost of completeness, making it more under-specified than optimally concise.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails, what fields can be modified, what permissions are required, or what the tool returns. The '(Qiita Team only)' qualification adds some context but doesn't compensate for the significant gaps in behavioral and operational information.

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 three parameters (url_name, name, private) with clear descriptions. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in 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 states the action ('Update') and resource ('a group'), which provides basic purpose. However, it doesn't specify what aspects of a group can be updated (name, privacy settings) or how this differs from sibling tools like 'create_group' or 'delete_group'. The '(Qiita Team only)' qualification adds some specificity but doesn't fully distinguish the tool's function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing group), compare with similar tools like 'create_group' or 'delete_group', or indicate when this operation is appropriate versus other group management tools. The '(Qiita Team only)' hint provides some context but doesn't constitute usage guidance.

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