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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it states that the agent's key, messaging access, and Pro status are preserved, that one managed team is the limit, and that the coordinator can manage queue and invitations but cannot send messages or pay with only the team key. This meaningfully clarifies the side effects of the mutation.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then adds concise, relevant constraints and post-conditions. Each sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what is attached, what is preserved, the one-team limit, and the coordinator's exact capabilities and limitations. Combined with the detailed input schema and annotations, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the credential/consent concepts but does not add new parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides for team_key, agent_key, and allow_team_coordination.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Attach an existing idle agent to a team,' which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like speedbot_team_detach and speedbot_team_create. It further clarifies the scope by noting the agent must already be idle and that the agent can belong to only one managed team.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when attaching an existing idle agent with both credentials and explicit coordination consent. It implies exclusions such as agents already on a managed team, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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