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

The description substantially discloses behavior beyond the annotations: changing the slug 'moves EVERY public quiz link of the team at once', the old address stops resolving, and cached entries may linger. It also mentions permissions, uniqueness, and inability to clear the slug. No contradiction exists with the 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?

The description is dense but every sentence adds necessary context: primary effect, meaning of the field, permissions, format constraints, uniqueness, destructive link consequences, and read alternative. The core action is front-loaded, and nothing is filler.

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?

For a single-parameter mutation tool, the description explains the full call surface: the effect, validation requirements, ownership requirements, secondary impacts, and the alternative read tool. Since an output schema exists, documenting return values in prose is not necessary.

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 already provides the only parameter with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuinely useful format rules such as lowercase letters, digits, hyphens, underscores, 4–32 characters, and start/end constraints, which go beyond the schema phrase 'the new team address'.

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 verb ('change the team address') and a concrete resource ('of the current team'), then defines precisely what a team address is: 'the first path segment of every quiz link'. It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like get_active_tenant and broader update tools.

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 can perform the action (owner/admin only) and when it is appropriate: 'a rare, deliberate rename — not routine tuning'. It also routes reads to get_active_tenant. It lacks a more explicit list of when-not-to-use alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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