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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds two pieces of context not in the annotations: the creator is made owner, and member invitation is gated behind the Team plan. It omits what happens on a duplicate slug, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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 tight sentences, no filler, with the ownership fact front-loaded and the downstream constraint second. Every clause contributes information the agent would otherwise have to discover.

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?

Usefully signals that the created team's ID feeds upgrade_plan, which partially substitutes for a missing output schema. However, with three of four parameters undescribed and no statement of what a successful response contains, a creating-a-resource tool needs more.

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 only 25% — just 'slug' is documented in the schema — yet the description mentions no parameters at all. name, bio and logoUrl are undocumented in both places, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap. It only hints that the result carries an ID.

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 a meaningful scoping fact — the caller becomes the owner — which separates it from create_organization and create_solo_workspace. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 one concrete sequencing rule: members can only be invited after upgrading via upgrade_plan. It does not say when to choose create_team over create_organization or create_solo_workspace, leaving the main selection decision to inference.

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