rybbit_update_team

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that memberUserIds and siteIds are replaced wholesale, which is essential for safe use. The authorization requirement is also clearly stated. It could mention return value or side effects of partial updates, but the critical behavior is well covered.

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 that front-load the purpose, immediately add a critical warning, and state permissions. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, key side effects, and authorization. It does not describe return values or error behavior, but these are not expected to be in the description for a simple update tool. Overall, the context is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 each parameter has a description. The description adds value by emphasizing the wholesale replacement behavior and advising to include full desired lists, which reinforces and clarifies the schema's 'replaces existing' notes. This helps the agent understand the consequences of providing these parameters.

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 'Update a team' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling create/delete team tools. The purpose is unambiguous and directly tied to the tool name.

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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use (updating existing teams) and includes critical usage warnings about wholesale list replacement. The note about requiring org admin/owner role and org:write scope gives explicit context for use vs. non-use. Does not explicitly name alternatives, but sibling names make differentiation obvious.

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