Update team

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies mutation but it doesn't state whether fields are partially updated or replaced wholesale, whether reassigning accounts overwrites the entire account set, or any permission requirements. The tool could have side effects (e.g., clearing fields if null) that are not disclosed.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the key actions (rename, re-describe, reassign accounts). It avoids verbosity, but the brevity comes at the cost of critical behavioral details. It's efficient, though not as structured as it could be with bullet points.

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?

Given a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to cover all parameter semantics (slug, avatarUrl), doesn't specify the update semantics (partial vs. full replacement), and omits usage guidance. Compared to sibling tools like add_team_account, it doesn't clarify how to achieve specific account changes (replace vs. add).

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all six parameters. It only names 'accounts' (accountIds) and implies 'name' and 'description' via 'rename/re-describe', but leaves 'slug' and 'avatarUrl' completely unaddressed. It also doesn't explain the semantics of optional fields, such as whether passing null clears a value.

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 clearly states the tool updates a team by renaming/re-describing or reassigning accounts, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_team or delete_team, though the purpose is sufficiently clear on its own.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_team_account or remove_team_account for account reassignment. It also doesn't mention prerequisites like requiring an existing teamId or the effect of omitting optional fields (e.g., whether it clears them). No exclusions or conditional usage are given.

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