update_tenant_slug

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

Annotations only say the operation is not read-only, not open-world, and not destructive in the teardown sense. The description adds crucial hidden behavior: changing the slug moves EVERY public quiz link at once, old addresses stop resolving with possible cached-entry lag, and the slug cannot be cleared. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs beyond the annotation flags.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: what changes, the URL format, permission, constraints, side effects, and the safe-reading alternative. The critical long-term consequence is front-loaded before the cautions, and nothing is redundant with the schema.

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 single-parameter mutation that affects public URLs, the description gives the permission model, uniqueness domain, character constraints, side effects on existing links, and a pointer to the read tool. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. An agent has everything required to decide when to call it and how to construct a valid slug.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful constraints beyond the schema: allowed character set, length range, start/end requirements, global uniqueness, and the fact that the value cannot be cleared. These are essential for constructing a valid argument and are absent from the schema's terse property description.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Change the team address of the current team'), defines the exact URL path segment it affects, and clearly distinguishes it from reading the slug (get_active_tenant) and from token addresses. The behavior is exact — an agent cannot confuse this with any sibling.

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?

Explicitly states the permission requirement, the uniqueness and format constraints, and warns when NOT to use it ('rare, deliberate rename — not routine tuning'). It also tells the agent to read the current value using get_active_tenant and notes token addresses continue working — giving clear when-to-use and when-to-avoid guidance.

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