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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent and open-world, so the description's job is to add context — it adds the authorization gate plus the partial-update contract, both of which matter to an agent. It doesn't mention side effects such as a slug change altering the public booking link, nor any rate/return behavior.

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?

Three short sentences: what changes, who may do it, and the update semantics — front-loaded with no filler or repetition.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers permissions and partial-update behavior well, but omits meaningful consequences (changing slug affects the team's booking link, so check_team_slug may be warranted) and says nothing about the result of the call.

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 50% and the description enumerates all five optional fields, but only by name (logo vs logoUrl, privacy vs isPrivate) without adding constraints. The required teamId, its provenance ('from list_teams'), and the slug pattern are already in the schema, so the description adds little beyond confirmation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus the exact mutable fields (name, slug, bio, logo, privacy), which clearly separates it from update_organization, update_profile and update_schedule. It does not name a sibling it could be confused with, so it falls short of 5.

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?

'Owners and admins only' gives a useful precondition, and 'Only the fields given change' implies PATCH-style use. However, it never states when to use this versus alternatives such as check_team_slug before a slug change, or update_member_role for membership changes, so routing is only implied.

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