Update a TestMonitor team by its unique identifier, changing only the fields you specify for partial team updates.
Update a team. Update a team using its unique identifier.
This endpoint supports partial updates, so you only need to include the fields you want to change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| query | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds the partial-update contract, which is real behavioral context not present in the annotations. It does not disclose what 'destructive' means here (field overwrite/removal), nor any permission requirements, leaving a meaningful gap.
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?
Short and front-loaded, but the first two sentences restate the same fact ('Update a team. Update a team using its unique identifier'), which is redundant. Efficient overall, with no unnecessary padding.
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?
This is a destructive mutation with nested body objects, zero schema description coverage, and no output schema, so the description should be doing more. It omits updatable fields, required parameters, relation-expansion options, and any note about irreversible/overwriting behavior flagged by destructiveHint.
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 reported at 0%, so the description carries the full burden of param documentation. It only says 'include the fields you want to change' and never mentions the updatable fields (name, description), the required teamId path parameter, or the query.with relation expansion. It adds essentially no semantic detail beyond the schema.
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?
Names a specific verb and resource (update a team) and states the identifier used to target it. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling family (post_team, put_team_members, delete_team, etc.) beyond the obvious verb, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.
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?
It tells the caller that partial updates are supported, so only changed fields must be supplied — useful invocation guidance. It offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to siblings like post_team or post_team_members, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.