Update Team Entry

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

Annotations already declare this is non-read-only and non-idempotent; the description adds concrete behavior including optimistic locking via expected_version, null clearing, environment dependency, and content-structure preservation. It does not explain version-mismatch errors or overwrite consequences, but it adds meaningful context beyond the annotations.

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 short, front-loaded, and mostly focused on constraints that affect invocation. Some markdown-structure guidance duplicates the content schema description, but there is little waste.

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 23-parameter mutation with no required parameters, the description leaves major gaps: entry_id targeting and most field semantics are not explained, and error behavior is absent. Annotations and the output schema reduce the burden, but the description is still not complete enough for fully confident invocation.

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 only 26% across 23 parameters, and the description exposes only content, type, tags, expected_version, and a vague reference to '11 metadata fields' without explaining entry_id or most field meanings. The low-coverage schema is not adequately compensated.

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 names the verb and resource (Update a team entry) and lists what can be changed, so the core action is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish team_update_entry from the sibling update_entry or batch_update_entries, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives task-specific constraints: preserve markdown structure, do not add top-level sections unless requested, pass expected_version for optimistic locking, pass null to clear metadata, and TEAM_DB_PATH is required. However, it does not state when to choose this over update_entry or batch_update_entries, nor when not to use it.

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