Update Team

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

Annotations already mark this as a write operation and idempotent. The description adds crucial behavioral details: all fields are optional (patch-like semantics despite PUT) and the members field performs a full replacement when provided. This warns about a potentially destructive action, going beyond the annotation-provided safety profile.

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 only two sentences, opens with the HTTP method and resource, and every clause provides essential information. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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 tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core operation, optionality, and the key behavioral caveat about members replacement. This is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool without missing critical semantics.

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 schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for every parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description complements it by clarifying that only provided fields are updated and that members replaces the entire list, adding practical meaning beyond individual field notes.

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 'PUT /api/teams/{id} — Update an existing team by ID.' This identifies the specific verb (update), resource (team), and requires an ID, distinguishing it from sibling create_team and delete_team tools.

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?

It conveys the update context and highlights partial update behavior ('All fields are optional; only provided fields are updated'), implying you should use this when modifying an existing team. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or scenarios where this should not be used, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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