update_team

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Update a team by id' and mentions the PUT method. It does not disclose whether this is a partial or full replacement, whether userIds is a complete-list replacement, or any side effects or permission requirements. The PUT verb hints at replacement semantics but does not explicitly communicate them.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and targeting mechanism, followed by the HTTP method in parentheses. There is no wasted text or redundant information.

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?

Despite having 6 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema or annotations, the description is extremely minimal. It omits behavioral details like replacement semantics, which fields are mutable, and what happens to unspecified fields. An agent would need to infer too much from parameter names and descriptions alone.

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 high (83%), and the schema already documents fields like userIds as 'The complete list of members of this team.' The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so it neither compensates for gaps nor improves on the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 states a specific verb ('Update'), a resource ('team'), and the targeting mechanism ('by id'), making it clear what the tool does. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_team and list_teams, though it does not explicitly contrast itself against them.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Update a team by id' and the PUT method, which signals this is for modifying an existing team rather than creating one. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives, and no mention that this should be chosen when a team already exists.

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