internal_squad_update_internal_squad

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about behavior beyond the implied mutation. It does not state what fields are updated, whether changes are reversible, whether permissions are required, or what the response contains.

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 text is short but consists of raw OpenAPI boilerplate (HTTP verb, path, controller tag) that adds no value an agent can act on, so brevity here reflects under-specification rather than effective concision.

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 mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, nested body object, and partial parameter coverage, the description is far too thin to be complete. Critical context such as the confirm gate and updatable fields is absent.

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, the description should compensate for undocumented fields, but it says nothing about name, uuid, or inbounds. Only the confirm parameter carries meaning, and that comes from the schema, not the description.

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?

"Update internal squad" restates the tool name almost verbatim, adding essentially no information beyond what the identifier already conveys. The PATCH path is the only marginally distinguishing detail, but there is no differentiation from siblings like external_squad_update_external_squad or config_profile_update_config_profile.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternative squad tools (e.g. add_users, set_tags, reorder). The agent must infer usage entirely.

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