Contract Testing: Admin Set Team Users

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

The description describes a write operation ('Replace all members'), but annotations include readOnlyHint: true, creating a direct contradiction. This severely undermines transparency.

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 very concise (two lines), but includes an unnecessary 'Toolset: Admin' line that does not add value. The structure is minimal but readable.

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?

No output schema; the description does not explain the return value, required permissions, or effects of the operation. For a mutation contradicting annotations, this omission is critical.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. Description only restates the schema's description, adding no new meaning.

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 clearly states the action: 'Replace all members of a team (admin).' The verb 'Replace' and resource 'members of a team' are specific. However, the contradiction with annotations reduces confidence.

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 like patch_team_users, remove_user_from_team, or list_team_users. The sibling tools list includes related operations, but the description does not differentiate.

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