internal_squad_create_internal_squad

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not mention auth requirements, the confirmation/preview gate, or what creating a squad affects. Only the raw 'POST' method hints at mutation, and that same gate is documented solely inside the schema's confirm property.

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?

It is short and front-loaded with the action, which is good, but the content is a verbatim OpenAPI fragment including a useless 'Tags:' line, so brevity here reflects low information rather than tight writing.

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 mutating tool with a nested required body object, no annotations, no output schema, and a confirmation gate, the description should at minimum explain the required payload and the confirm behavior. Nearly all of that is missing, leaving an agent to infer everything from the schema.

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 only 50% (the confirm parameter is documented in-schema; body.name and body.inbounds are not), so the description was expected to compensate and does not. It says nothing about the required name constraints or that inbounds is a list of inbound UUIDs.

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 verb and resource ('Create internal squad') plus the raw HTTP route, so the basic action is identifiable. However, it is nearly a restatement of the tool name, adds no scope or field detail, and does nothing to distinguish it from siblings such as internal_squad_update_internal_squad or external_squad_create_external_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 preconditions (e.g., required inbound UUIDs must already exist), and no note that non-GET calls need confirmation. The 'Tags: Internal Squads Controller' line is routing metadata, not usage guidance.

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