vk_post_teams_6faf1e0edd19

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses aliases and authentication but misstates the body field as 'optional' while the schema marks it required, a clear contradiction. It also fails to mention side effects, update semantics, or return values, leaving key behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 moderately concise, but 'Updates a team' appears twice, and the phrase 'Path and query parameters are top-level fields' is vague. The extra sentences add value but suffering from redundancy prevents a higher score.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers auth and parameter passing, but omits expected response format, partial update behavior, and field constraints. The optional-body contradiction further undermines completeness, leaving users with ambiguity.

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 100%, with each parameter already described ('Team ID Required', 'The team with updated values'). The description adds useful alias and top-level parameter info, but the erroneous 'optional body field' muddles semantics. It neither fully compensates nor detracts beyond baseline.

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 clearly states the tool updates a team via a raw proxy for POST /teams/{id}, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it repeats 'Updates a team' twice and does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like vk_put_teams_*, so it is clear but not fully distinguishing.

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 invocation details (body field, top-level parameters, aliases, auth) but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given many sibling team tools (e.g., PUT, DELETE, GET), it lacks exclusions or alternative references, leaving usage context implicit.

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