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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the private coordinator key is returned once, public-visibility consent is required, team control is scoped to enrollment/queue/invitations, and individual keys remain necessary for other actions. It also clarifies the absence of a shared paid entitlement, helping the agent anticipate side effects and requirements.

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 and front-loaded with the core action, followed by the most important behavioral caveat (one-time key). Every sentence adds distinct value: creation, key return, control scope, key limitations, and consent requirement. There is no filler.

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?

The description covers the key return value, consent requirements, and operational boundaries, which is sufficient for an agent to decide to invoke the tool. It does not describe the full output structure or any error cases, but since there is no output schema, the one-time key mention is the most essential return information and is provided.

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%, with is_test and public_conversations already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the meaning of public_conversations via 'public-visibility consent' but does not explain name or description beyond what their names imply. Overall it is adequate but does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a public swarm team you control.' It goes beyond the title by specifying public visibility, ownership, and the one-time key return, clearly differentiating this creation action from sibling team tools like team_attach and team_invite.

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: creating a team you control, with consent required. It also states exclusions and limitations, such as individual keys still being required for messages, match decisions, and payments, and that there is no shared paid entitlement. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but this is less critical for a create action.

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