Parses team.yml YAML text and writes the team data, creating a new team from the provided configuration.
创建团队——传 team.yml 文本，解析写入。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team_yaml | Yes | team.yml 文本内容（YAML 格式） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states '解析写入' (parse and write), which indicates a mutation, but it does not disclose side effects, error behavior, idempotency, or any permissions needed. For a creation tool, this minimal disclosure is insufficient for an agent to anticipate consequences.
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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose ('创建团队') and then explains the input and action. There is zero waste; every word contributes. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool.
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 tool with one well-documented parameter, the description covers the core purpose and input. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., whether an existing team is overwritten, what happens on invalid YAML) and assumes the agent understands the write implication. Without annotations, a bit more detail on side effects would improve completeness.
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 description coverage is 100% because the schema fully describes team_yaml as 'team.yml 文本内容（YAML 格式）'. The description adds a slight clarification by saying '传 team.yml 文本' but does not provide additional format or syntax details beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a clear verb+resource: '创建团队' (create team). It also specifies the input format (team.yml text) and the action (parse and write). This distinguishes it from sibling create tools like create_entity or create_agent by the resource type, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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—pass team.yml text and it will be parsed and written—but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The resource type is distinct enough that selection is straightforward, but the guidance is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.