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

The description adds useful behavioral details beyond the annotations: duplicate names return the existing team, and unmatched members are reported back rather than silently skipped. It does not contradict the annotations, though it could mention error handling or side effects on existing teams in more depth.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core creation purpose appears first, followed by optional membership behavior, then edge-case handling. Every sentence adds meaningful operational detail without redundancy.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core operation, the optional members behavior, duplicate-name handling, and unmatched-member reporting. It is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly, though it does not describe the exact response format beyond indicating what is returned.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description still adds value by clarifying that members are 'existing influencers' moved into the team and that unmatched ones are reported back, which supplements the schema's parameter descriptions without duplicating them.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a team ... on the influencers page and optionally move existing influencers into it.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling create_influencer by describing the team entity and its optional membership move, so an agent understands exactly what this tool is for.

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 gives clear context: use it to create a team and optionally move influencers in during creation. It also provides an implicit get-or-create guideline by stating that an existing team with the same name is returned instead of duplicated, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like add_influencer_to_team for later use.

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