vikunja_teams

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as mutation, authorization requirements, or side effects. For a tool that can create, update, and delete teams, this is a significant gap.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but omits critical information. It front-loads the resource but does not earn its place due to lack of useful detail beyond a vague statement.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, CRUD operations, no output schema), the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain subcommands, parameter combinations, member management, or return values.

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?

The input schema has 10 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of them. The agent cannot infer what 'id', 'name', 'subcommand', or other parameters do without additional context.

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 'Manage teams and team memberships', which identifies the resource but uses the vague verb 'manage'. It does not specify the scope of operations, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like vikunja_task_crud or vikunja_labels. The purpose is somewhat clear but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description gives no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases for team management.

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