Contract Testing: Admin Update Team

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

Annotations already supply readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the meaningful word 'replace', implying the provided fields define the new whole configuration rather than a partial update. It does not clarify whether omitted optional arrays are cleared or preserved, which is important for a replace operation.

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 one-sentence core description is front-loaded and compact. However, the Description field then repeats the entire parameter list that already exists in the input schema, which is redundant and does not earn 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?

The description is minimally sufficient for a team config replacement with schema-covered parameters and annotations that clarify idempotence and destructiveness. It is incomplete regarding behavior of omitted optional arrays and the expected response, and no output schema exists to fill that gap. Given the sibling admin_patch_team_users, a usage distinction would also improve completeness.

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%, so the parameters are already fully documented in the schema; the baseline applies. The description's parameter list adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, such as effects of omission or relationships between fields. It is not misleading but also not additive.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Replace a team's configuration (admin).' This clearly identifies the tool as an administrative full replacement of team settings, and the verb 'replace' helps distinguish it from read/list/create/delete team siblings. It does not explicitly distinguish from admin_patch_team_users or admin_set_team_users, but the phrase 'team's configuration' conveys a broader 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention that this is a full replacement rather than a partial/patch-style update, and it gives no preconditions such as requiring an existing team. The 'Admin' label adds little because it is already implied by the tool name and annotations.

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