update_teamUpdate an existing team by ID or slug to change its name, description, members, channels, or integration settings.
Update a specific team by id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Required. ID of the team (fills `{id}` in /v1/teams/{id}). Pass it as `id` -- this tool has no `team_id` argument. | |
| data | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'by id' — it does not explain update semantics, partial vs full replacement, permission requirements, or what happens to omitted fields.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no wasted words. However, its brevity contributes to under-specification rather than efficient completeness for a complex nested update operation.
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?
Given the complexity — a nested 'data' object with many mutable attributes, feature-flag-dependent fields, and a rich schema — the description is far too sparse. It does not explain what is updated, whether omitted fields are cleared, or any important constraints, even though an output schema exists.
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?
The description only mentions updating by id, which the schema already documents in detail. It says nothing about the required 'data' object, its nested attributes, or how the many team fields should be supplied. The schema carries nearly all parameter meaning, and the description adds no additional semantic guidance.
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 a specific verb and resource: update a specific team by id. It is clearly distinct from create_team, list_teams, and get_team, though it does not clarify what aspects of the team can be updated.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or constraints. It simply states the operation without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.