scf_update_team

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly aligns with those. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states the admin role requirement, and clarifies that setting is_active=false archives the team and that the row is never deleted. This is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure that helps an agent understand side effects.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then adds the critical behavioral note about archiving. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what can be updated, the admin requirement, and the archive behavior. It does not describe the return value or error conditions, but given the annotations already signal the write nature and the schema covers all parameters, the description is largely complete. A brief note on what the response contains would push this to 5.

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 7 parameters. The description adds a small amount of semantic value by grouping the parameters into categories (name, description, function alignment, active flag) and by explaining the archive semantics of is_active. However, it does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides for most parameters, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Update'), a specific resource ('a team'), and enumerates the exact fields that can be changed (name, description, function alignment, active flag). It also distinguishes itself from related team tools by noting the write/admin nature, which separates it from read-only tools like scf_get_team and scf_list_teams.

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 clearly indicates this is a write operation requiring an admin role, which tells the agent when it is appropriate to use. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, but the context of sibling tools (scf_create_team, scf_add_team_member, scf_remove_team_member) makes the usage context reasonably clear. The archive behavior via is_active=false is also a useful usage signal.

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