scf_create_team

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds meaningful context: it is a write requiring admin role, and empty teams are allowed but reported through health warnings rather than rejected. This is useful non-obvious behavior beyond the schema.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause earns its place. The behavioral caveat about empty teams is concise and relevant.

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 create operation with fully documented parameters and minimal annotations, the description covers the essential action, authorization, and a notable behavioral edge case. It does not mention the return value, which would be useful since there is no output schema, but this is a minor gap.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds only general context about business-function alignment, not additional parameter-level meaning, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create a team aligned to a business function.' It also signals the operation type ('write — admin role') and is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like scf_update_team, scf_list_teams, and scf_add_team_member.

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 makes the intended use clear: creating a new team, not updating or populating one. The 'born empty' note implies member management belongs elsewhere, though it does not explicitly name alternatives such as scf_update_team or scf_add_team_member.

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