tempo_update_team

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

Goes well beyond the annotations, which only say readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description discloses the read-modify-write merge behavior, the fact that a naive partial PUT would wipe the resource, the per-call read cost, optimistic-concurrency refusal on changed resources, and the two-phase confirmation flow. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs to avoid a destructive mistake.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then merge semantics, then concurrency, then confirmation. Every sentence carries distinct information; the density of parenthetical detail (e.g. the MCP_CONFIRM_MODE reference) makes it long but not padded.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the merge contract, the preview/confirm protocol, and the concurrency refusal — the three things that determine whether a call succeeds or destroys data. Nothing material is left unstated.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely important semantics the schema does not: omitted fields keep their current values via a read-and-merge, and confirmToken must never be sent on the first call or reused. That materially changes how id/name/confirmToken should be supplied.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+identifier: 'Update an existing Tempo team by id.' An agent can immediately distinguish this from the sibling tempo_create_team, tempo_get_team, and tempo_delete_team without opening any schema. The first sentence alone is sufficient for selection.

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?

Clearly states how to use it ('Supply only the fields to change') and the full confirmation workflow, including the elicitation vs confirmToken fallback. It does not explicitly name the alternative tool for creation (tempo_create_team), but the 'existing ... by id' framing makes the boundary self-evident.

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