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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false; the description adds real context beyond that: it proxies to a domain mount, dangerous targets gate on a preview/confirm handshake, and cross-team calls require an OAuth grant covering the target team plus live membership. It also discloses that responses echo the effective team as meta.team_sid. It does not describe how upstream tool errors or denials surface back to the caller.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the safety handshake, then the cross-team mechanism. Dense but every clause carries operational information; no filler or restatement of the title.

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 proxy tool with a nested free-form arguments object, the description covers the routing prerequisite, the mutation-safety flow, auth requirements for cross-team execution, and the team echo in responses. That is sufficient to call it correctly, though error/timeout behavior of the delegated call remains unaddressed and there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 baseline is 3, but the description earns extra credit by clarifying that commit_token must be nested inside the arguments object rather than passed top-level, and by explaining that team_sid is top-level and triggers a token swap. That is meaning not derivable from the generic 'The tool's arguments object' schema description.

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 concrete verb and resource: invoke a named tool with its arguments object, and explicitly ties the name to search_tools. It distinguishes itself from the sibling discovery tools (search_tools, describe_tool, list_toolsets) as the execution endpoint.

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 clear routing (find the name with search_tools first) and the two-step preview-then-confirm workflow for dangerous tools, including where commit_token goes. It also states when to use team_sid. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming alternatives for execution paths.

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