Contract Testing: Admin Create Team

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description is consistent with a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds the 'admin' scope, which hints at privilege requirements, but does not disclose side effects, return values, or any pitfalls. This is adequate but not rich.

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 core statement is front-loaded and clear: 'Create a new team (admin).' However, the subsequent parameter list duplicates information already present in the input schema, adding unneeded length. The structure is clean and readable, but not every sentence earns its place.

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 create operation with a fully documented schema, the description provides enough to invoke the tool with required parameters. However, there is no output schema and the description does not mention what response to expect, whether referenced UUIDs must already exist, or how this fits into team management workflows. Additional behavioral context 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%, so the schema fully documents name, administratorUuids, environmentUuids, and pacticipantNames. The description merely duplicates these parameter definitions without adding new semantics like relationships, validation rules, or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the descriptive burden.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Create a new team (admin).' The action is unambiguous and the 'admin' qualifier distinguishes this from non-admin team operations. Among siblings like admin_update_team, admin_delete_team, and admin_list_teams, the 'create' verb clearly identifies this tool's role.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that admin_update_team should be used for modifying existing teams, admin_delete_team for removal, or that this requires admin privileges beyond the word '(admin)' in the description. The usage context is only implied by the action itself, not explicitly stated.

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