team_close

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the irreversible nature, the automatic agent status change (offline), and the lack of member deletion — meaningful behavioral context beyond what any schema could convey. It also warns that team_id never falls back to auto-resolving.

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 compact (roughly 60 words) with every sentence earning its place. Key behaviors are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second paragraph reinforces the critical non-reversibility constraint without redundancy. No wasted words.

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?

The description is comprehensive for a single-parameter, irreversible operation: it covers purpose, behavioral side effects, reversal constraints, and parameter sourcing. With an output schema present, return-value explanation isn't needed. Could add slightly more on validating preconditions (e.g., confirming team completion), but overall well-covered.

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% for the single team_id parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating team_id is REQUIRED (emphasizing the no-fallback behavior), noting it accepts 'ID or name', and pointing to team_list as the lookup mechanism — context beyond what the schema description provides.

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+resource ('Close (complete) a team'), explains the two concrete behaviors (sets status to completed, marks all busy agents as offline), and distinguishes itself from siblings like team_delete/team_list by clarifying members are not deleted but set offline.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use ('Use this when the team's mission is fully done'), explicitly states members are not deleted (differentiating from team_delete), and emphasizes the non-reversibility. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools to check first, though team_status is implied as a precursor.

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