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

Annotations already signal this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds useful specifics about which fields are mutable and the immutable prefix, but it does not mention permissions, potential side effects on related entities, or retry implications.

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 short sentences, each adding necessary information. The primary action is front-loadedagainst the constraint, with no fluff 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?

The description plus schema and annotations are sufficient for invoking a simple update tool. It states the mutable scope and the key invariant; minor gaps are lack of explicit return behavior and the requirement to provide at least one field to update.

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 description coverage is only 33%, and the description compensates by mapping 'rename' to the name parameter and 'change description' to the description parameter. It does not restate schema constraints, but adds meaning to the two otherwise undocumented parameters.

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 operations ('Rename a team or change its description') and explicitly states what cannot be changed ('The issue prefix cannot change'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from create_team and other team-related mutations.

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 context is clear: use this tool to update an existing team's name or description. It also provides an exclusion by stating the issue prefix cannot change, though it does not mention alternative tools or explicitly state that at least one of name/description should be provided.

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