Update tribe

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

Annotations only mark this as a mutating, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: partial-update semantics, exact 403 vs 404 authorization outcomes, and the side effect that 'private' hides the tribe from list_tribes and makes it invite-only. It also discloses the return payload shape, going well beyond the structured annotations.

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 each clause carries operational information: mutation scope, authorization, error semantics, visibility effects, and return shape. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids filler. No sentence is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly spells out the exact return object and the conditional shareUrl field. It also covers error cases, permissions, and privacy side effects, so an agent has what it needs to invoke and interpret the result. Minor details like uniqueness constraints are absent, but nothing required for a correct call is missing.

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 input schema already documents all five parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the critical cross-parameter rule that at least one optional field must be supplied and only supplied fields change, plus clarifies the visibility enum's downstream effects. This lifts it above 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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Change a tribe's name, description, intro or visibility.' It names the exact mutable fields and contrasts naturally with create/delete siblings; the tool name and title reinforce this. No ambiguity about what operation is performed.

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?

It states explicit call conditions: pass at least one field, only given fields change, and owner/admin permission with 403/404 outcomes. It also explains the consequences of setting visibility and references the relevant sibling for inviting members. It does not explicitly say 'use create_tribe for new tribes', but that is clearly implied by 'Change'.

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