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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds value by disclosing membership side effects and that the returned 'identity receipt' is bounded rather than a full object. It does not mention that duplicate slugs fail with 409 SLUG_TAKEN (that lives only in the schema), but the ownership behavior is the key addition.

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, front-loaded with the action and its side effect, with the routing hint second. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return details needn't be explained, and the description still sketches the receipt shape. The only residual gap is conflict/failure behavior and scope (which workspace or namespace the team belongs to), which an agent might want before calling.

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 75% and the field descriptions are already rich (slug pattern, uniqueness conflict code, name defaulting to slug, the 'why' field being accepted but not recorded). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Create a team') plus the non-obvious side effect that the caller becomes owner and initial member. It also names the sibling (team_show) that covers detail retrieval, so an agent can distinguish it from team_list and team_add_member without opening any schema.

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?

Names one alternative ('use team_show for details'), but only for follow-up reads, not for the create decision itself. There is no guidance on when to create a team versus a workspace, or when not to create one (e.g., slug collisions beyond the 409 code buried in the schema).

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