external_squad_create_external_squad

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only restates the route and name. It does not say what a squad is, what permissions are required, whether the call is idempotent, or how duplicates are handled. The dry-run/confirm behavior appears only in the schema, not the description.

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 text is short and front-loaded with the route and action, which is efficient, but the 'Tags: External Squads Controller' line is framework noise that consumes part of an already thin description.

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 mutation tool with a nested required body, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is under-specified. An agent gets the endpoint but nothing about required permissions, side effects, or the confirm-preview workflow that governs whether the request is actually sent.

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% and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. It does not explain the nested body shape, the name constraint (2-30 chars, allowed character pattern), or the confirm flag, leaving the nested-object semantics to the schema alone.

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 a specific verb (Create) and resource (external squad) plus the underlying route POST /api/external-squads, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish this from neighboring tools such as external_squad_update_external_squad or internal_squad_create_internal_squad.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only signal is the raw HTTP verb/route, which the agent must interpret on its own.

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