Update a group (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
Update a group (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Allowed fields: name, description, manager | |
| sys_id | Yes | System ID of the group |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.1Input schema / properties / fields / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / fields / descriptionPrevious value: -"Key-value pairs to update"New value: +"Allowed fields: name, description, manager"Input schema / properties / fields / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "description": {},
+ "manager": {},
+ "name": {}
+}v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds the important environment gate "requires WRITE_ENABLED=true," but it does not explain partial-update behavior, error conditions, or permission details beyond that gate.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It puts the core action first and follows with the key gating condition.
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?
The schema and annotations carry most of the needed detail for a simple two-parameter mutation, and no output schema is expected. Still, the description omits update semantics such as whether omitted fields are preserved and how invalid fields are handled, leaving a meaningful gap for a mutation tool.
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%, and the nested fields schema already documents the allowed update fields (name, description, manager). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 a specific verb and resource: "Update a group." This clearly distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like get_group and list_groups, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from other group mutations such as add_user_to_group or remove_user_from_group.
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 includes the prerequisite "requires WRITE_ENABLED=true," which is useful usage context. However, it does not say when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_group, create_group, or group-membership tools, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.