update_agents_in_team

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

No annotations are available, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the name, offering no details on side effects (e.g., whether it replaces or appends agents), permissions, or error conditions.

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 extremely short but lacks essential content. It is under-specified rather than concise; every sentence should earn its place, but this single phrase provides no substantive information beyond the tool name.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description completely fails to explain return values, error behavior, or operational details. It is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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% with one parameter described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but since coverage is high, the baseline is 3. However, the description does not compensate for potential ambiguity between 'update' and the schema's 'added' hint.

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 'Update Agents in Team' is a generic verb+resource but fails to specify what 'update' entails (add, remove, replace). It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'add_new_agent_to_team' or 'delete_agent_in_team', leaving 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?

No usage guidance is provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context on prerequisites or limitations.

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