Update team

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds no key behavioral facts for a mutation: whether accountIds replaces the full membership list or appends to it, whether omitted fields are left untouched, or what happens to accounts dropped from the array. 'Reassign its accounts' hints at a full-set replacement without confirming it.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the primary operation is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, but it wastes nothing.

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 six-parameter mutation with no output schema and zero parameter documentation in the schema, the description leaves too much open: partial-update semantics, membership replacement behavior, null-clearing, and the return shape are all absent. An agent could invoke it but could easily clobber a team's account list unintentionally.

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% across six parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It implies name, description, and accountIds only, leaving slug and avatarUrl unmentioned, and gives no guidance on the replace-vs-merge semantics of accountIds or on how to clear the nullable description/avatarUrl fields.

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 specific verbs (rename/re-describe, reassign) against a specific resource (team), which is far more informative than the tautological title. It does not differentiate itself from the adjacent account-membership siblings (add_team_account, remove_team_account), which is the most likely source of confusion.

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: you call this to change an existing team's name, description, or account set. There is no explicit when/when-not, no mention of what requires a team to already exist, and no routing statement against add_team_account/remove_team_account for account membership changes.

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