sigma_set_user_attribute_for_teams

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

With annotations already indicating readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and idempotentHint=true, the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not disclose whether the operation overwrites existing values, adds to existing assignments, requires specific permissions, or how it handles non-existent teams or attributes. The example is more about parameter structure than behavior.

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 very concise: one sentence stating the purpose, followed by a parameter definition and example. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes a concrete example that clarifies the structure. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema, return values are covered. The description is adequate for a simple set operation but incomplete: it does not document attribute_id, does not explain the difference from update tools, and lacks behavioral details like idempotency/overwrite semantics. The example helps but leaves gaps for a full understanding.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does provide a clear structure and example for the 'assignments' parameter, which is otherwise just an array of objects with additionalProperties. However, it completely omits any explanation of 'attribute_id', leaving that parameter to be inferred from its name. The compensation is partial.

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: 'Set a user attribute value for specific teams.' This identifies the verb (set), the resource (user attribute value), and the scope (specific teams). It distinguishes from tools like sigma_set_user_attribute_for_tenants but does not clarify the difference with sigma_update_user_attribute_for_teams, which could be a sibling alternative.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or relationship to update/delete/get user attribute team tools. The only extra information is an example for the assignments parameter, which is about parameter format, not usage context.

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