Create or update a team: chat channel, members, who is on call now, and the team it escalates to.
Create or update a team: chat channel, members, who is on call now, and the team it escalates to.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team | Yes | ||
| channel | No | ||
| members | No | ||
| on_call | No | ||
| escalates_to | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation, and the description echoes 'create or update' but adds no operational context: whether omitted fields clear existing values (channel/on_call default to empty strings), whether unknown teams are auto-created, or whether this overwrites membership wholesale. For a non-idempotent write with zero schema documentation, that is a meaningful gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence enumerating the managed fields with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a five-parameter mutation.
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?
A non-idempotent write tool with no output schema, no parameter documentation, and unknown overwrite semantics needs more: what is returned, what is replaced, and what happens on invalid input are all unaddressed.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does gloss the fields ('who is on call now' for on_call, 'the team it escalates to' for escalates_to), but gives no format detail for members (emails? usernames?) or channel, and does not explain the empty-string/null defaults.
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?
States a specific verb pair ('Create or update') and resource ('team'), and enumerates the fields it manages (channel, members, on_call, escalates_to). This distinguishes it from the read/diagnose siblings, though no sibling covers the same resource so differentiation is easy.
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 call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites (must the team already exist?), and no mention of who should invoke it. The agent must infer everything about timing and conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.