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

With destructiveHint already declared, the description goes beyond annotations by stating exactly what gets destroyed ('evicts anyone not re-listed'), what merge does NOT do ('never evicts'), the confirmation requirement, and the invitation/notification side effect. This is precisely the 'what gets destroyed' context that annotations can't carry.

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 tightly packed sentences with the default behavior front-loaded, no filler, and the destructive alternative placed after the safe path. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 destructive, idempotent, no-output-schema mutation, the description covers the destructive mechanics, the guard (confirm_replace), and the notification behavior. It does not describe the members structure or validation failures (e.g., needing an accepted orchestrator+builder), leaving those to the schema.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate, and it does so for the two decision-critical params: mode (default value and semantics) and confirm_replace (required true for replace). It leaves team_id, created_by, and the members object shape (agent_id/strengths) to the schema, so it's helpful but not complete.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('decides the roster', 'invited + notified of their role') and clearly delineates the two operating modes. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like add_team_member, remove_team_member, or create_team, which an agent must disambiguate.

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?

The when-to-use-which-mode guidance is explicit: merge is DEFAULT and additive, replace is a full overwrite that requires confirm_replace:true. What's missing is guidance relative to sibling tools (add_team_member/remove_team_member) that also mutate roster membership.

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