Api teams update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds nothing on top: no statement of what the body modifies, whether unspecified fields are reset (full PUT semantics), required permissions, or failure behavior.

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 technically short, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency — a single snake_case identifier is not informative content that is front-loaded; there is nothing to front-load.

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 endpoint taking an opaque body with no output schema, no parameter descriptions and only generic annotations, the description is completely inadequate — an agent cannot safely construct the request from this.

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% and there are two parameters, one of which ('body') is an untyped free-form object. The description supplies no information about the id format, or which team fields the body accepts, so it entirely fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

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 raw operation identifier 'api_teams_update', which merely restates the tool name and title. It implies an update to a 'team' resource but never states what is being updated, in which system, or how it differs from the sibling partial_update/destroy/create team tools.

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 ciso_assistant_api_teams_partial_update or the batch_action variant, and no prerequisites or preconditions are stated. Usage can only be guessed from the verb 'update'.

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