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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description adds real value by flagging 'MUTATES', confirming partial-update semantics (unchanged fields preserved), and warning that path ids are never sent in the body. It doesn't state permission requirements or reversibility, keeping it below a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with 'MUTATES', zero filler. Each clause (endpoint, partial-update fields, path-id rule) carries distinct information.

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 3-param destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the mutation semantics, endpoint, and body construction well. It could note that unspecified fields are left untouched and what a success response looks like, but it is broadly complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics: the `fields` passthrough is a partial-update body merged over typed fields, and profileId/teamMemberId are path-only and never serialized into the body.

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 the specific verb and resource ('updates a team member on a profile') and grounds it with the exact API endpoint PATCH /v1/profiles/{profileId}/teammembers/items/{teamMemberId}, clearly distinguishing it from create_team_member and list_team_members.

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 'partial update' note and 'pass changed fields' instruction tell the agent when this tool is appropriate versus a full create. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative (e.g., create_team_member for new members), but the context is clear.

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