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

The annotations already indicate a mutating, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the private coordinator key is returned only once, the scope of team control is enumerated, individual keys remain required for other actions, no shared paid entitlement, and public-visibility consent is required. This enriches understanding beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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—four sentences—and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds distinct information: creation, key return, control scope, and consent/permissions. There is minimal redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 creation tool that returns a sensitive key, the description covers the purpose, the one-time nature of the key, the scope of control, and the required consent. It does not discuss error handling or next steps, but given the lack of an output schema, it sufficiently communicates the expected result and key constraints.

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 50%; only `is_test` and `public_conversations` have schema descriptions. The tool description mentions 'public-visibility consent' which aligns with `public_conversations`, but it does not explain `name` constraints, `description` requirements, or `is_test` usage. It adds little semantic value beyond what the schema already conveys, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 the primary action clearly: 'Create a public swarm team you control.' It identifies a specific verb, resource, and ownership condition. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate, but the purpose is unambiguous given the tool name and the details about scope of control.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions consent and key return but does not state conditions for choosing speedbot_team_create over siblings like speedbot_join or speedbot_team_attach. The usage context is implied, not explicit, and no exclusions are given.

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