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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, implying mutation. The description states it updates the display name, which aligns, but doesn't escalate the destructive nature—e.g., no warning that changing name may affect existing references. It adds value by clarifying scope but doesn't go beyond annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states the action and scope, second lists exclusions and requirements. No fluff, front-loads the core action, and packs useful constraints efficiently.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 param, no nested objects) and presence of output schema, the description covers essential usage. It clarifies auth requirements, exclusions, and the single editable field. Slight gap: doesn't mention potential side effects or irreversible changes, but given simple scope, it's sufficient.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'name' with a description. The description adds no extra syntax or format details beyond schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. It does not complement the schema, but doesn't need to.

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?

Clearly states it updates the team's display name, specifying the scope (team bound to API key or OAuth connection). It distinguishes from other team-related tools like growsurf_get_team and growsurf_request_team_verification, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The verb 'update' and resource 'team' are specific.

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?

Explicitly notes what is NOT editable (personal profiles, billing, ownership), giving clear boundaries. It also states the required environment variable and that campaign ID is not needed, which helps agent decide when to use this tool. These details provide strong usage context.

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