updateTeam

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Update a team' with no mention of whether this is a partial update, whether unspecified fields are cleared, or any side effects, permissions, or error conditions. This is a serious gap for a mutation tool.

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 brief, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It is a single sentence that only repeats the tool name, failing to earn its place by providing any unique information. Structure is minimal, with no additional context or formatting.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain update semantics, required parameters, or expected behavior, leaving the agent without enough information to correctly predict the tool's effects or interpret results.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions ('id', 'name', 'description'). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description provides no additional meaning or constraints on the parameters.

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 a team' is a direct restatement of the tool name 'updateTeam', making it tautological. It names the verb and resource but adds no additional detail about the team entity or the specific update behavior, failing to distinguish itself from sibling update tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or how it differs from alternatives like updatePerson or updateGroup. The description offers no context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate invocation scenarios.

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