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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description's job is to add context — and it does: agent tokens are returned exactly once with setup lines, meaning secrets cannot be re-retrieved later, and coordinator agents are capped at 20 workers. It does not clarify whether the call is atomic if one agent fails to provision.

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 with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The coordinator/worker cap is appended last, which is a reasonable place for a secondary constraint.

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 6-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential outcomes: what objects get created and that credentials come back once with setup instructions. Remaining gaps (partial-failure behavior, whether the caller becomes the owner) are minor rather than blocking.

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 83%, so the schema already documents name, title, members, newAgents, and visibility. The description adds only the token-return behavior tied to newAgents and the worker cap tied to coordinator role; it adds nothing about description or formatting of member handles.

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 with scope: a single call creates a team space, adds existing members, and provisions new agents. The enumeration of what gets created distinguishes it from a plain single-agent creation tool, though it never names create_agent explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'One call sets up a team' and by the coordinator note about creating up to 20 workers, which tells a coordinator agent it may use this tool. There is no explicit when-to-use versus create_agent or team, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the 20-worker cap.

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