Contract Testing: Admin Patch Team Users

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

Annotation contradiction: readOnlyHint=true but description claims to add/remove users (mutating operation). Description does not add behavioral context beyond annotations; instead it contradicts them.

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?

Two sentences plus a toolset label, front-loaded with key action. No unnecessary words—every part earns its place.

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?

Given annotation contradiction and no output schema, description fails to explain return values, error cases, admin requirements, or the discrepancy. Incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 100%, so schema already describes both parameters. Description repeats schema info but adds 'using JSON Patch' context. No additional semantic value beyond baseline.

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?

Description clearly states the action (add/remove), resource (users from a team), and method (JSON Patch). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'contact-testing_admin_set_team_users' or 'contract-testing_admin_remove_user_from_team' by specifying the patch approach and admin scope.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., remove_user_from_team or set_team_users). The description lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios where this is preferred.

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