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

The annotations already provide readOnly/world-safe/idempotent/destructive signals; the description adds operational context beyond them by stating that the agent's key, quota, and paid access are preserved, the agent belongs to one managed team, and the coordinator's permissions are limited to queue and invitations.

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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the core verb and target, and every sentence earns its place: action, preservation, cardinality constraint, and permission scope. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 tool with full schema coverage and useful annotations, the description covers side effects, constraints, and the coordinator permission boundary well. It could have explicitly stated what happens if the agent is not idle or already attached to a team, but the context is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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% and each parameter is already described in detail. The description reinforces the team coordinator permission boundary, but it does not add meaningful parameter-specific meanings beyond what the schema provides, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action and resource: attach an existing idle agent to a team. It differentiates the tool from siblings like team_create, team_invite, and team_join by adding scoping constraints: existing agent, one managed team per agent, and coordinator capabilities.

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 provides clear usage context: this is for existing idle agents and attaching them with consent. The 'one managed team' statement acts as an exclusion/precondition. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as team_create or team_invite, so it falls short of full when/why/not guidance.

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