Contract Testing: Admin Set Team Users

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

Annotations already indicate this is read-write, idempotent, and not destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds the key behavioral fact that existing team memberships are replaced, not appended, and labels the operation as admin-scoped. This is consistent with the annotations, including the idempotentHint.

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 opening sentence is concise and front-loaded, but the description then restates both parameters with text identical to the input schema. That duplication adds length without adding information; a shorter description that simply emphasized replacement semantics would be more disciplined.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description and annotations together cover the essential context: what is replaced, the admin scope, the required parameters, and the idempotent behavior. It could state what an empty uuids array does, but that is a minor gap given the clear 'replaces existing' language.

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%, and the parameter descriptions in the tool description are essentially identical to those in the input schema. The description adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so it sits at the schema-covered 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?

The description begins with the specific verb 'Replace' and clearly names the resource: 'all members of a team (admin).' This immediately distinguishes it from sibling team tools like add_role_to_user, remove_user_from_team, and patch_team_users, which handle partial membership changes.

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 phrase 'Replace all members' and the parenthetical 'replaces existing' give clear context for when to use this tool: when a caller wants to overwrite the full membership set. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the wholesale-replacement semantics are clear enough to steer an agent away from partial-update siblings like admin_patch_team_users.

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