sac_teams_patch

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

The description specifies 'SCIM v2 PATCH', implying standard PATCH behavior (partial update with operations), but does not elaborate on authentication needs, allowable operations, or side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and partially meets it.

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 that front-loads the core action. While efficient, it could include more structured detail without being 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 tool complexity (3 params, nested object, mutation) and lack of output schema/annotations, the description omits return value information, error scenarios, and operational details, making it incomplete for safe 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the basic purpose, meeting the baseline for high coverage but no extra value.

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 specific verb 'Partial update', the resource 'team/group', and the protocol 'SCIM v2 PATCH', distinguishing it from sibling tools like sac_teams_create and sac_teams_list.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any usage prerequisites or exclusion criteria. It only states the action without context.

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