aircall_create_team

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

The description discloses the create operation and provides context that teams group users, which aligns with annotations declaring readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. However, it does not add deeper behavioral context such as permissions, return value, or post-creation effects beyond what the annotations already imply. The additional context is useful but minimal.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action 'Create a new team', and contains no redundant or fluff text. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise and structured.

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 simple one-parameter create tool, the description is adequate: it specifies the action, the resource, and the purpose. It could mention the return value or required permissions, but the annotations and schema already address safety and parameters, so the description is sufficiently complete for this low-complexity tool.

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 already describes the only parameter 'name' with 'Team name', so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra semantics about the parameter, such as uniqueness, format, or constraints, leaving the schema to carry the full meaning, which meets the baseline of 3.

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 'Create a new team' with a specific verb and resource, making it distinct from sibling tools like aircall_delete_team or aircall_get_team. It also provides context that teams group users for call routing and organization, which reinforces the purpose.

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 implies usage by the action itself but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like aircall_delete_team or aircall_list_teams. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so it's a baseline 'implied usage' score.

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