update_team

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses side effects (auto-flip, notification push), permission requirements, and error behavior (403). Does not mention reversibility or status transition rules, but overall informative.

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?

Very concise: three sentences with no fluff. Key information (permission) is front-loaded. Side effects and valid values are clearly organized.

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?

Covers inputs and side effects well for a 5-parameter tool. Output schema exists (context signal true), so missing output description is acceptable. Could mention if status transitions are validated, but not necessary.

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 0%, so description adds essential meaning to all parameters. It explains the effect of target_opp_id and status, lists valid statuses, and implies the role of name and description. team_id is self-explanatory.

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 ('Update') and the resource ('team'), listing specific fields (name, description, target_opp_id, status). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_team by focusing on updating an existing team.

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?

Explicitly states 'Lead-only' permission and that non-leads get 403, providing clear usage restrictions. Side effects (auto-flip on target_opp_id, notification on status) are described, but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives beyond permission.

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