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

The description goes well beyond the annotation set by warning that every public quiz link moves, old addresses stop resolving, cached entries may persist, and token addresses remain unaffected. This gives the agent a realistic picture of the destructive side effects without needing to infer them.

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 first sentence immediately states the operation and object, followed by constraints and consequences. Every sentence adds needed information, and the most critical warning (all public quiz links change) comes early.

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?

With the destructiveHint annotation, permission note, impact explanation, caching caveat, unaffected token paths, and pointer to get_active_tenant, this description covers all context an agent needs to safely invoke the tool. The output schema is present, so return-value documentation is not a gap here.

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 schema only says 'The new team address,' while the description supplies the accepted character set, length range, start/end rules, global uniqueness, and the fact that it cannot be cleared. It also clarifies that the slug is the first URL path segment, which is essential for correct invocation.

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 names the exact operation ('Change the team address of the current team') and the domain object, then clarifies the scope via the URL pattern. It also distinguishes itself from the read-only get_active_tenant, so an agent can tell it apart from 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?

It states who may call the tool ('Owner / admin only'), when it should be used ('rare, deliberate rename'), and points to get_active_tenant to read the current value first. The warning 'not routine tuning' also implicitly steers agents toward alternatives for normal edits.

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