Contract Testing: Admin Update Team

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds that it 'replaces' a configuration, implying a full overwrite rather than partial update, but does not disclose whether unspecified parameters are cleared, or any other behavioral details. No side effects or auth requirements are mentioned.

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 concise, consisting of a one-line purpose and a parameter list. The 'Toolset: Admin' line is redundant but not harmful. Every sentence serves a purpose; no wasted words. However, it could be more structured for readability.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description omits important context: whether this is a full replacement or partial update, what happens to unspecified fields, and what the response looks like. The behavioral gaps make it insufficient for an agent to use correctly without additional information.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, and the description simply lists parameters with brief descriptions that mirror the schema. It adds no additional semantics, default values, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Replace a team's configuration (admin)', clearly indicating the verb (replace) and resource (team's configuration). It distinguishes from sibling tools like contract-testing_admin_create_team and contract-testing_admin_get_team, but lacks explicit differentiation from contract-testing_admin_patch_team_users or set_team_users which also modify team settings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like contract-testing_admin_patch_team_users or contract-testing_admin_set_team_users. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., admin permissions) or exclusions. This is a significant gap given the presence of multiple sibling tools for team management.

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