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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior those annotations cannot convey: the team receives a default icon and the agent should not ask the user about it, and the created UUID should not be surfaced to the user. No mention of duplicate-name handling or error behavior, but the added context is genuinely useful.

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?

Front-loads the core action in one sentence, then uses a short bullet list for trigger conditions and two terse directives for edge behaviors. Slight redundancy between the lead sentence and the first bullet, but nothing is padding.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the trigger conditions, the required parameter, and the two behavioral quirks an agent would otherwise guess wrong. It does not address failure modes such as duplicate team names, which is the only remaining gap for a simple two-parameter creation tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by stating that only `name` is required, pre-empting a question about an icon parameter that does not exist, and framing `account_user_uuids` as 'initial members' at creation time, which clarifies intent versus the separate attach-account-users-to-team tool.

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: 'Create a new team in the current account.' The resource (team) is unambiguous against the many create-* siblings, so an agent can differentiate it from create-template-from-scratch or create-account-tag without reading further.

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?

Explicit 'Use this tool when' bullets cover the trigger conditions, and one bullet supplies the sequencing rationale (a team must exist before being attached to documents or templates), which maps to sibling tools like update-document-teams. It stops short of naming a when-not case or an alternative tool, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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