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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false and idempotentHint=true; the description adds the permission model, the name-collision rule, and the frozen-team restriction — real behavioral context. Minor tension worth noting: the 'team must not hold an item of that name already' rule means a retry can fail rather than silently no-op, which nuances (though does not directly contradict) the idempotentHint.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the constraints following. Every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

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?

Three required parameters, full schema coverage, annotations present, no output schema needed. The description covers the action, ownership scope, permission requirement, collision rule, and frozen-team behavior — everything needed to invoke 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 coverage is 100% and the enum for kind is documented, so the schema carries most of the load. The description still adds a constraint not present in the schema — the item must be one of *your own* — which materially affects how an agent chooses the name argument.

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 ('Move ... memory files, skills or agents into a team') plus the intent ('so its members can use it'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like memory_move (moving within your own memory) and team_return (the reverse direction).

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 concrete preconditions: you must have the right to create that kind of content in the team, the name must be free, and frozen teams reject the operation. It does not name the inverse tool (team_return) or say what to do when a precondition fails, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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