Contract Testing: Admin Update Team

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

Description says 'Replace' (a destructive mutation), but annotations list readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction. Additionally, no permissions or side effects are described.

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 short: one sentence followed by a parameter list. It is efficient but repetitive of schema information. Could be slightly more structured but not excessively verbose.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no return value description, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'replace' entails (full replacement? partial?), nor any prerequisites or effects.

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 the schema fully documents parameters. The description merely lists parameter names without adding extra meaning (e.g., constraints or relations). Baseline 3 applies as no value-added beyond schema.

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 'Replace a team's configuration (admin)', indicating the action (replace) and resource (team configuration). It is a specific verb+resource, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create or delete beyond the word 'update' in the name.

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., create_team, patch_team, or delete_team). The description lacks context for selection.

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