sigma_update_team_members

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

The description confirms this is a write operation (consistent with readOnlyHint=false) and instructs to provide member ID lists, but it does not disclose behaviors like whether the operation replaces the entire membership set, handles duplicates, or fails on invalid IDs. Annotations already cover read-only/safety, so the description adds minimal extra context.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the verb, no wasted words. Every sentence contributes meaning: the first states purpose, the second states the required input format.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description leaves ambiguity about whether 'add or remove' means you can do both simultaneously, and it does not mention any caveats or output details. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the description is not fully complete for a mutation tool with zero parameter descriptions.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description partially compensates by clarifying that add and remove take lists of member IDs, which is the main semantic need. However, it does not explain the role of team_id or nuances like null defaults, so coverage is incomplete.

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 that the tool adds or removes members from a team, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like sigma_list_team_members (listing) and sigma_bulk_assign_team_members (bulk assignment) by focusing on adding/removing with explicit ID lists.

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 implies usage for modifying team membership but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like sigma_bulk_assign_team_members or sigma_onboard_member. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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