npm_team_create

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, the description adds only the '@scope:team' format, which is parameter semantics rather than behavioral context. It does not disclose any additional side effects, permission requirements, or typical failure modes, leaving the agent without useful behavioral nuance beyond what annotations already convey.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose and the essential format requirement. It wastes no words, but it is extremely brief and leaves out potentially important usage context, so it does not earn a perfect 5.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no output schema, and the description is minimal. It does not explain what happens on success, whether any destructive behavior is involved (despite destructiveHint=true), or what permissions are needed. For a tool with only two parameters, the description could still benefit from a note about prerequisites or side effects, making it incomplete.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats the team format already present in the schema ('@scope:team') but does not add any extra meaning about the optional 'description' parameter or how the parameters interact. It neither harms nor significantly enhances the schema's 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 clearly states 'Create a team inside an organization' with a specific verb and resource, and it also defines the required team format as '@scope:team'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like npm_team_delete or npm_team_grant, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, required permissions, or situations where a different team-related tool would be more appropriate. The context of sibling tools exists but the description does not address it.

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