Edit Team

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: passing user_ids completely replaces team membership, and passing an empty array removes all users. This goes beyond the schema and addresses the main 'gotcha.' It doesn't cover permissions or error handling, but for a simple update tool, this is substantial.

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 three short sentences: the first states purpose, the second gives a prerequisite, and the third explains the behavior of user_ids. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, prerequisite, and the key behavioral nuance. It doesn't discuss return values or error cases, but these are less critical for such an edit operation and are not required by the schema or annotations.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that 'name and/or membership' can be updated independently, and specifically that an empty user_ids array removes all users. These details are not fully explicit in the schema property descriptions.

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 states 'Update a team's name and/or membership' which is a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_team, delete_team, and get_team by focusing on modification rather than creation, deletion, or retrieval.

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 an explicit prerequisite: 'Use get_teams to find team IDs first.' It also clarifies the when-to-use context (updating name and/or membership). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like create_team for new teams, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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