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

Annotations only cover the generic safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false). The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: a linked job is auto-opened, security defaults to strict, and the request must be signed because created_by becomes the linked project's requester. It omits failure behavior and any rate/permission specifics.

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 dense sentences, no filler, with the primary action and its side effect front-loaded before the auth prerequisite. The emphasis on "SIGN" efficiently flags the critical constraint.

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 create tool with no output schema and a nested, entirely undocumented security object, the description covers the key side effect and the signing requirement but leaves request_id and the security object's structure opaque. Adequate but with clear gaps for an agent wiring up the call.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it explains three of four: goal (the team's purpose), security (defaults to strict), and created_by (must prove itself and becomes requester). Only request_id is left undocumented, and the nested security object's fields are not described.

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") scoped to a goal, and notes the side effect of auto-opening a linked job. It does not name any sibling (e.g. complete_team, set_team_roster) to disambiguate, but the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous against the surrounding team tools.

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?

The description implies the context of use (creating a team to pursue a goal, which spawns a linked job) and surfaces a hard prerequisite (the request must be signed, created_by must prove itself). It never states when not to use this tool or points to an alternative for related operations.

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