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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, and the description adds the authorization requirement (Admin/Executive/Owner) plus the constraint that the organization must be one the caller administers. This goes beyond what the schema or annotations say, and there is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 with no filler: the action is stated first, and the required role is stated second. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 2-parameter create operation with no nested objects or output schema, this covers action, target scope, and authorization adequately. It does not describe duplicate-name behavior or return value, but those are minor at this complexity level.

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?

Only orgId has a schema description; name has just type and minLength. The description maps both parameters implicitly—name is the new team's name and orgId is the target organization—but it does not explain naming constraints or uniqueness behavior, so compensation is partial.

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?

The description opens with the verb 'Create' and a specific resource, 'a new team under an organization,' which is exactly what the tool does. It also narrows scope to organizations the caller administers, which distinguishes it from generic team/invite-related siblings like createTeamInvite and inviteOrgMember.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition: only organization Admins, Executives, or Owners should call this. It does not name an alternative tool for other roles or for listing teams, but the resource and role context make the intended use clear.

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