Api teams partial update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds zero context beyond them – nothing on what fields can be patched, whether omitted fields are preserved (the whole point of a partial update), permission requirements, or side effects. With no annotations this would still be a 1; with annotations it contributes nothing.

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 that brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency: a single snake_case identifier conveys no structure, no front-loaded verb-and-scope statement, and no actionable information.

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?

This is a mutation endpoint with a free-form object body, no output schema, 0% schema coverage, and dozens of confusingly similar siblings. The description provides none of the context needed to call it correctly, such as which team fields exist, what the ID format is, or what a partial update returns.

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 0% for both parameters, and the description compensates for none of it. The critical ambiguity – that `body` is a free-form object holding the team fields to patch, versus `id` being the string identifier of the team – is completely unaddressed.

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 is the tool name with underscores replaced by spaces: 'api_teams_partial_update'. It restates the title rather than stating in plain language that it partially updates (PATCHes) an existing team record by ID, which is a tautology per the scoring rubric.

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 whatsoever on when to use this versus the many siblings such as api_teams_update (full update), api_teams_create, api_teams_destroy, or api_teams_retrieve. An agent must infer PATCH-vs-PUT semantics on its own.

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