update_team_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's scope requirement (`team:write`) is the main added value. It says nothing about the partial-update merge semantics, what happens to fields omitted from the payload, or how null values clear settings — meaningful gaps for a config mutation, but not contradictions.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the mutation verb is front-loaded. It is efficient but under-specified rather than wasteful — the terseness is the problem, not the length.

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 19-parameter, all-optional mutation with no output schema, the description should cover partial-update semantics, null-clearing, and write-only secret handling. None of that is present, leaving an agent unable to call it confidently without guessing at merge behavior.

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 11% across 19 parameters, and the description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever — it does not explain name, industry, setGoals, the *Locked booleans, or the null-to-clear behavior of coachingStyleId. The schema itself only annotates the two write-only secrets, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 a specific verb+resource ("Update team settings"), which is clearly distinguishable from read siblings like get_team_config. However, it does not name the alternative or clarify the relationship to get_team_config, and "settings" is left broad relative to the 19 specific fields in the schema.

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 only guidance is the required scope `team:write`. There is no statement of when to use this versus get_team_config, whether partial updates are supported, or whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared — the single most important usage question for a 19-parameter mutation with zero required fields.

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