Rename a team or rotate its access code

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent write, so the description adds value by noting that rotating the access code invalidates the old one. It also documents the return object shape, which is useful because no output schema is provided. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence, followed by a short Args block and a Returns line. The Args block somewhat duplicates the schema, but the overall structure is scannable and free of unnecessary prose.

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 simple three-parameter tool, the description covers the core operation, side effects, and return shape. However, it does not state whether at least one of name or access_code must be provided, or whether both can be updated together, which leaves a real ambiguity for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description mostly restates the schema parameters, with small added context like 'for self-join links' for access_code. It does not add meaningful format or syntax details beyond the 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 the operation: 'Update a team's name, or set a new access code,' identifying both the specific resource and the mutable fields. It is not tautological, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling team-related tools like umami_update_team_user.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: renaming a team or rotating its self-join access code. It also explains the consequence of rotation, which helps an agent decide if this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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