update_squad

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a mutation, partial update behavior, permissions, side effects, or default workspace handling. The word 'Update' implies mutation but offers no safety or side-effect info.

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 a single concise sentence, which is efficient, but it is under-specified. It is not overly verbose, but it lacks structural detail that would help an agent understand the tool's capabilities.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (free-form patch object, no output schema, no annotations), the one-line description is severely deficient. It provides no information about return values, update semantics, required fields, or any behavioral context, making it nearly useless for an agent to predict outcomes.

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 description adds no explanation for the parameters. The input schema itself only documents workspace_id; the required 'patch' object is free-form with no description, and 'id' lacks documentation. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage (33%), leaving the patch contents and id semantics completely unexplained.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the target resource ('a squad'), which distinguishes it from create/delete/list siblings. However, it does not specify what properties can be updated, making it slightly generic but still unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description only states the action without any context about how it fits into the workflow.

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