create_team

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Create a research team' but does not mention side effects (e.g., immediate activation, permission requirements, or whether the creator becomes owner). No information on rate limits or security considerations.

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?

Two sentences, concise and to the point. The first sentence states the action; the second provides context about team capabilities. However, the second sentence could be more directly about the tool's behavior (e.g., what happens after creation) rather than generic team features.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, whether the creation is immediate, or how to handle errors. An agent would lack critical execution details.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema: it does not elaborate on parameter usage, constraints, or default behavior. For example, it does not explain that 'team_type' defaults to 'research_group' or that 'is_public' defaults to true.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'research team', and provides context by mentioning what teams can do (collaborate on papers, share reviews, run workflows). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'join_team'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be used to create a new team, while other tools like 'join_team' are for joining existing ones. The description is silent on exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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