create_teams

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 mentions that users are added via the 'users' relationship field, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a mutation requiring specific permissions, what happens if the team already exists, what the response contains, or any rate limits. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a clarifying detail. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and efficient.

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 of a team creation tool (likely a mutation with organizational impact), the description is incomplete. No annotations exist to cover safety or behavior, and there's no output schema to explain return values. The description lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or what constitutes a successful creation, leaving significant gaps for an AI 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters (schema description coverage 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description adds value by mentioning the 'users' relationship field, which implies a mechanism for adding users, though it's not a formal parameter. This compensates for the lack of parameters, earning a baseline 4.

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 a new team') and specifies that user IDs passed through the 'users' relationship field are added to the team. This provides a specific verb+resource and clarifies the effect on users, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_team_links' or 'create_team_memberships'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'create_team_links', 'create_team_memberships', 'update_team', and 'delete_team', there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or distinctions between creating a team and managing its components.

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