Teams: Update Agents in Team

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

Annotations already declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context beyond them: the removal side-effect of replacement, the auth requirement (User API key in api-access-token header), the concrete PATCH endpoint, and the extra_body escape hatch. It does not describe the response payload, and the explicit "agents are removed" side-effect sits in mild tension with destructiveHint=false (mitigated because team membership is re-addable, not data loss).

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?

Purpose and the destructive-ish consequence are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by endpoint, auth, body fields, and encoding notes in a tight block. The Persian/Unicode digit sentence is tangential but short and correctness-relevant; nothing is padded.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side-effects, auth, endpoint, and the extra_body mechanism. The main omission is what the call returns (updated team vs. member list), which matters slightly more here because no output schema exists to cover it.

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%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it corrects the schema's misleading "IDs of users to be added to the team" by framing user_ids as the full replacement set, explains extra_body's merge behavior, and notes that IDs/numbers may be supplied in Persian or Arabic-Indic digits.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Replace the agents of a team") and immediately clarifies the replace semantics with "Agents not in user_ids are removed from the team." That semantics cleanly separates it from the add/remove siblings (gapify_add_team_agents, gapify_remove_team_agent) and from gapify_update_team, which patches the team itself rather than its membership.

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 replace semantics imply when to use it (setting the complete membership list rather than incrementally adding/removing), and the tip that omitted agents are removed serves as a caution. However, it never explicitly names the alternative tools or states when to prefer an incremental add/remove instead, so the routing guidance is implied rather than stated.

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