update-team

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Update' without explaining side effects, whether updates are incremental or require all fields, or any authentication requirements. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the full impact of invoking the tool.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with well-documented parameters, though it could benefit from slight expansion for behavioral context.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description fails to provide complete context. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., updated team object), whether partial updates are allowed, or any error conditions. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 has 100% coverage, with clear descriptions for each parameter (teamId, name, handle, description). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. According to the guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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 that the tool updates a Datadog team's name, handle, or description. It uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('Datadog team'), and lists the updatable fields, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this tool from other update tools like 'update-dashboard' or 'update-incident'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'create-team' or 'delete-team'. It does not mention prerequisites, permissions, or context where this tool is appropriate. The sibling tools list includes many update tools, but the description provides no differentiation.

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