set_group_properties

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

The description implies mutation ('Set properties'), but lacks disclosure of side effects, such as whether changes are reversible, if the group must exist, or any permissions needed. With no annotations provided, the description should carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails significantly.

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 single-sentence description is efficiently front-loaded and contains no extraneous words. It is concise, though it could benefit from minimal additional context without padding.

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 output schema and a mutation tool with 5 parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the purpose or effects of the properties (e.g., 'visible' or 'locked'), prerequisites (e.g., group must exist), or return values. The description fails to provide a complete understanding for safe usage.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond 'Set properties'. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the 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 'Set properties of a group' provides a clear verb and resource, but lacks specificity on which properties are affected or the context (e.g., within a document page). It distinguishes from creation and retrieval tools, but not from similar property-setting tools like 'set_page_item_properties'.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'set_page_item_properties' or 'set_spread_properties'). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual hints, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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