sigma_update_user_attribute_for_teams

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

Annotations already flag destructive and non-read-only behavior. The description adds the crucial 'Requires confirm=True' safeguard, which is not inferable from the schema alone, and provides an example for team_ids. It does not disclose reversibility or effects beyond revocation, but that is partially covered by annotations.

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 brief and to the point, with two sentences plus a one-line parameter explanation and example. No redundant information; every sentence earns its place.

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 description covers the main action and the confirm requirement, but omits the role of attribute_id and any relation to sibling tools. Given the tool's destructive nature and the presence of an output schema, the description could still be more complete, but it covers critical aspects.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining team_ids as 'List of team IDs whose attribute assignments should be removed' and gives an example. However, it does not explain attribute_id or the semantics of confirm (beyond requiring true), leaving two of three parameters underdocumented.

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 tool 'Revoke a user attribute assignment for specific teams,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like sigma_set_user_attribute_for_teams by indicating revoke rather than set, but the name 'update' vs 'revoke' introduces slight ambiguity.

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 a prerequisite ('Requires confirm=True') but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sigma_delete_user_attribute_for_team or sigma_set_user_attribute_for_teams. It implies usage for revoking multiple team assignments but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state conditions.

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