update_mcp_admin_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a mutation ('Update'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions (beyond schema hints), whether changes are destructive or reversible, potential side effects, or error conditions. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and specifies the target groups. There is zero waste or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly while conveying essential information.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., success/failure outcomes, idempotency), doesn't explain the relationship to sibling tools like 'setup_mcp_admin', and omits context about why this update is needed, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 fully documents all 4 parameters (hostname, username, password, port). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as how these inputs relate to the group update process. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Update mcp_admin group memberships') and the target ('to include groups for installed services'), specifying which groups (docker, lxd, libvirt, kvm) are involved. It distinguishes from siblings like 'setup_mcp_admin' or 'verify_mcp_admin' by focusing on group membership updates rather than initial setup or verification, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings.

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., after installing services), exclusions (e.g., if groups already exist), or related tools like 'setup_mcp_admin' for initial configuration, leaving the agent to infer usage from the action alone.

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