github_teams_update_legacy

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Update a team (Legacy)', which implies mutation but gives no details on what changes are made, side effects, authentication needs, or potential risks.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, but it sacrifices informativeness. For a tool with a nested object parameter, more structure or examples could help without being overly verbose.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the request body structure, return value, or how this tool fits into the broader team management context. The description is incomplete for effective agent invocation.

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%, providing minimal descriptions for parameters. The tool description adds no further meaning; it does not explain the expected structure of the 'body' parameter beyond 'Request body (JSON object)'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the action 'Update' and the resource 'team' with a '(Legacy)' tag, indicating it's a legacy API. However, it lacks specifics on what aspects of the team can be updated, and the distinction from non-legacy alternatives is not explained.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_teams_update_in_org. There is no context on prerequisites, such as required permissions or team membership.

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