createTeam

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a team' only indicates a creation operation; it does not mention idempotency, potential errors, return values, or side effects, which is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise, but it merely restates the tool name without earning its place. It provides no additional information beyond the name 'createTeam', making it an under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about the creation result, duplicates, or related operations. The current description is too minimal for a create tool, even with a simple two-parameter schema.

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% with clear descriptions for both 'name' and 'description'. The tool description adds no parameter information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 'Create a team' uses a clear verb+resource structure, stating exactly what the tool does. It is distinct from sibling tools like updateTeam or getTeam due to the create verb, but it doesn't add extra context about what constitutes a team in this system.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like updateTeam or listTeams. No prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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