update_quota_group

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false. The description adds that PUT replaces omitted fields, which is consistent and provides extra context about the tool's behavior beyond what annotations convey.

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 with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second provides essential workflow guidance. Every sentence adds value.

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 3 parameters, all required, and an object parameter that lacks full schema constraints, the description properly advises fetching the current definition to get the structure. No output schema exists, but the workflow guidance compensates. The tool is completely described for the intended use.

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%, but the description adds meaning: it specifies the 'quotaGroup' parameter must be a 'complete raw Qualtrics definition' and advises first retrieving the existing group. This helps the agent understand the parameter's content beyond the schema 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 clearly states 'Replace a quota group with a complete raw Qualtrics definition,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_quota_group and update_quota by emphasizing replacement with a full definition.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use get_quota_group first, modify the returned definition, and send the complete payload because PUT may replace omitted fields.' This tells the agent when to use the tool and how to prepare the input.

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