external_squad_update_external_squad

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about auth requirements, partial-update semantics, or reversibility. The important confirm/preview gate is only documented inside the schema (in Russian), not the description.

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?

It is short, but 'Tags: External Squads Controller' is auto-generated noise that does not earn its place, and nothing useful is front-loaded before it.

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 a deeply nested body, no annotations, no output schema, and a confirmation gate, this description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine correct invocation behavior without opening 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?

With only 50% schema description coverage and two parameters, the description adds no meaning for any field. The large nested body (templates, hwidSettings, customRemarks, etc.) is left entirely to the schema with no descriptive compensation.

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 'Update external squad' is essentially a restatement of the tool name (external_squad_update_external_squad). Beyond the HTTP verb PATCH, it adds no resource scope or differentiation from siblings like external_squad_create_external_squad or internal_squad_update_internal_squad.

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 such as external_squad_get_external_squad_by_uuid or the create/delete variants. The 'Update' verb implies a mutation but no context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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