cigchat_team_update_agent_group_users

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

The description discloses a key behavioral prerequisite: the token requires the 'Manage Team' scope, which is valuable for an agent to know. However, it omits important behavioral details such as whether the 'members' array replaces the entire member list or merges with existing members, and what happens to members not included. No annotations exist to fill this 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that includes the purpose, endpoint, and required scope. Every element serves a function, with no redundant fluff. The endpoint, while slightly redundant with the tool name, adds precision.

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?

For a mutating team-management tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description lacks sufficient context. It does not explain whether the member update is additive or a full replacement, nor does it disambiguate from closely related team tools. The agent would need to infer critical behavior not covered by the schema.

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?

The description provides no explanation of the parameters. The schema covers 'id' with a description, and 'members' items have user_id/weighting with examples, but the meaning of 'weighting' and the overall semantics of the 'members' array remain unclear. With schema description coverage at 50%, the description does not compensate for the unstated parameter behaviors.

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 opens with 'update agent group members', a clear verb+resource that precisely states what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'cigchat_team_update_agent_group' by specifying 'members' rather than the group itself. The endpoint and scope requirement further clarify the operation.

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 agent group membership but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'cigchat_team_update_agent_group' or 'cigchat_team_create_agent_group'. There is no mention of exclusions or specific situations where this tool is preferred.

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