write_team

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

Annotations already signal destructive behavior and non-read-only intent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: adding appends rather than replaces, and removing deletes only the named team assignment. This gives an agent a clearer model of the mutation's semantics without contradicting the annotations.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core operation, and the second adds only the behavioral caveat needed to prevent misuse.

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 simple three-parameter mutation with destructiveHint and no output schema, the description covers the action, accepted value types, and key mutation semantics. The main gap is identifying the required 'id' parameter, but the phrasing 'from a card' makes the card context reasonably clear, and the annotations cover the safety profile.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that add/remove items may be team names or ids, which helps disambiguate the string/integer unions in the schema. However, it never explicitly explains that the required 'id' parameter refers to the target card, nor how add and remove interact when both are provided.

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 names a specific verb (add/remove) and a specific resource (teams on a card), and clarifies that identifiers can be names or ids. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like write_assign or write_update_card, which target different resources or operations.

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 implies when to use the tool: any time team assignments on a card need to be added or removed. It also gives useful behavioral guidance about appending vs deleting. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with write_assign/write_unassign or say when one should be preferred over the other.

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