Update Team

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

Annotations only mark this as a non-read-only write, so the description carries the burden and delivers: the write-gate requirement and the full-replacement semantics of userIds are both behavioral facts not encoded in structured fields. It does not clarify partial-update semantics for the remaining fields (whether omitted name/emoji/costCode are preserved or cleared), which matters for a non-idempotent mutation.

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?

Three short sentences, zero padding, with the operation set front-loaded and the operational prerequisite and destructive-replacement caveat trailing in descending priority. Every clause carries distinct information.

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 no output schema and a 5-parameter mutation, the description should tell an agent how to call it safely; the write gate and replacement semantics do that. The only gap is unstated behavior for partially specified updates, which is meaningful but not fatal given no output schema exists to explain returns.

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 only 40% (only teamId and userIds are annotated), but the description compensates by naming all four optional fields and explicitly spelling out userIds as a wholesale replacement. Baseline for low coverage would be higher, but the description adds no format or constraint detail for name, emoji, or costCode beyond their names.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Rename a team, change its cost code/emoji, or replace its member list") and enumerates every mutable field, so an agent immediately knows what the tool touches. It never names a sibling, but the "team" resource is enough to separate it from telgea_update_user and telgea_create_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?

"Requires TELGEA_ENABLE_WRITES=true on the server" is an explicit precondition an agent must check before calling, and "userIds replaces the whole member list" warns about the dangerous mode of use. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it (e.g., use telgea_create_team for new teams).

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