squads_update

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

Annotations state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutating-but-non-destructive profile is already conveyed. The description adds nothing beyond the name: it does not say whether omitted fields are preserved, whether the operation requires the uuid to exist, or what permissions/auth are needed.

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?

Three words is short, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing; there is nothing to front-load because nothing of substance is stated.

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 tool with three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and only minimal annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It provides no information an agent would need to invoke it correctly beyond guessing from the name.

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 the description mentions no parameters at all. Three parameters (uuid, name, inbounds) are left entirely to the schema, and even the meaning of the inbounds array (what it replaces/associates) is undocumented anywhere.

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?

Verb+resource is clear ('Update ... squad') and the word 'internal' usefully distinguishes it from the sibling external_squads_update. However, it does not say what parts of a squad are updatable, so it fails to separate this from siblings like squads_set_tags, squads_reorder, squads_add_many_users, and squads_remove_many_users.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the text whether to use this rather than squads_set_tags or squads_add_many_users for a given change.

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