create_team

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool creates a team but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate team names, rate limits, or what the return value contains. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Create a new team') and adds only necessary qualifiers ('with optional members and tags'). Every word earns its place.

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 complexity (a creation tool with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, idempotency, or error handling, and doesn't explain what the tool returns. For a tool that creates resources, this leaves critical gaps for an agent.

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 schema already documents all parameters (name, members, tags) with their types, constraints, and descriptions. The description adds minimal value by noting that members and tags are optional, but this is already implied by the schema (only 'name' is required). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('a new team'), and mentions optional features ('with optional members and tags'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'add_user' or 'update_team', but the verb 'Create' is specific enough to indicate this is for initial team creation rather than modification.

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 alternatives. With siblings like 'add_user' (for adding members to existing teams), 'update_team' (for modifying teams), and 'list_teams' (for viewing), the description doesn't help an agent choose between these tools or indicate prerequisites (e.g., whether you need admin permissions).

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