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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the return payload (persisted TeamDTO with identifier) and the auth requirements (MANAGE_TEAMS, teams:write). It stays consistent with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. It does not cover collision behavior, e.g. what happens if the name or alias already exists.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then return value, then permissions. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 usefully names the returned TeamDTO and identifier, and it covers the permission/scope gate. The only missing piece is failure mode on duplicate name/alias, which matters for a non-idempotent create.

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% and each of the 8 parameters, including account/workspace selection and memberUuids, is described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the required 'name', so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new team in the current workspace'), which cleanly separates it from pm_update_team, pm_delete_team and pm_list_teams. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the verb/resource pairing is unambiguous.

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?

Gives clear prerequisite context ('Requires the workspace MANAGE_TEAMS permission', 'API-key scope: teams:write'), which tells an agent upfront whether the call can succeed. It does not state when to use this versus pm_add_team_member or pm_update_team, so exclusion guidance is absent.

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