growsurf_update_team

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating operation (readOnlyHint: false) and destructiveHint: true. The description adds the auth requirement (GROWSURF_API_KEY) and the scope constraint, but doesn't discuss side effects beyond the name update. Since annotations cover the core mutating nature, the added value is moderate, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by exclusions and auth requirement. No redundant phrasing; every clause adds value.

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?

With a single parameter, an output schema present, and annotations covering mutability, the description covers the essential action, scope limitations, and environmental requirements. The agent has all information needed to call it correctly without further inference.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'name', including type and length constraints. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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') and resource ('display name of the team'), and clarifies scope by listing non-editable attributes (personal profiles, billing, team ownership). This clearly distinguishes it from other tools like growsurf_get_team or growsurf_update_campaign.

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 gives explicit boundaries by stating what cannot be edited here, implying when not to use this tool. It also notes that it requires GROWSURF_API_KEY but not GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID, which helps the agent know the prerequisites. While it doesn't name alternative tools for other team edits, the exclusions effectively guide the agent away from using it for those cases.

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