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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive creation operation. The description adds useful context beyond that: the team is created empty, no members are added, and the response includes the newly generated `team_…` id. This meaningfully clarifies the tool's behavior without contradicting the 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?

Three short, purposeful sentences with no filler. The most important facts are front-loaded: create an empty team, only name is required, returns the new team id, and no members are added. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the required input, the side-effect boundary (empty team, no members), and the return value including the id. Sibling routing is also addressed, so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (`name` and `description`). The description adds only the requirement that `name` is mandatory and the return contains the new team id, providing marginal extra meaning but not compensating for any schema gap.

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 action ('Create'), a specific resource ('team'), and a precise scope ('empty team'). It also distinguishes itself from team.add_member by clarifying that no one is added during creation, which helps an agent tell this apart from sibling tools.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool ('Create an empty team') and points to the alternative for adding people ('add people one at a time with team.add_member'). It also notes that only `name` is required, preventing unnecessary parameters.

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