update_team

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

With no annotations supplied, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the required permission scope and the REST verb/path, but says nothing about whether PUT replaces or merges fields, what happens to omitted optional fields (e.g., emoji, timezone), whether changes are reversible, or what the response contains. The authorization prerequisite is the one genuinely useful addition.

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 and front-loaded, with the permission requirement visible immediately. The 'Tags: Teams' line is pure generator boilerplate and restates the tool name ('Update Team'), which is minor waste but not bloat.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with three required fields, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is far too thin. It omits the field list, the replace-vs-merge semantics implied by PUT, and any statement of the effect of the update — all things an agent needs before invoking a write operation.

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 coverage is reported at 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter meaning at all. The schema descriptions themselves are only placeholders like '(body)' with examples, so the actual semantic value is thin, but per the rubric the schema is considered to do the documenting.

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 essentially the tool name plus the HTTP endpoint (PUT /api/v1/teams/{id}), which does convey that this modifies an existing team identified by id. However, it never states what aspects of the team are updated (name, emoji, timezone, SLA policy, business hours, assignment settings), so an agent must open the schema to understand scope. It is distinguishable from siblings only by the generic 'Team' resource, not by any described behavior.

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 only guidance offered is the prerequisite permission `teams:manage`, which is useful but not a usage rule. There is no statement about when to use this tool versus update_team_assignee, create_team, or get_team, and no warning that it is a mutation requiring an existing team id.

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