team_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the access-control semantics of open vs closed (who can read), which is real behavioral context, but omits permissions required, behavior when team_id already exists, and whether creation is idempotent.

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 short sentences, zero waste, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the policy clarification.

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 creation/mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description is only partially complete: access semantics are covered, but required identifier formats and creation edge cases are not.

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 coverage is 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate. It does explain the policy enum values clearly, but leaves members (presumably user/agent identifiers?) and team_id completely unexplained.

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: creating a team shared memory space. The word 'team' differentiates it from memory_add/memory_search siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the policy explanation, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus memory_add or agent_remember, nor any stated prerequisites (does the team need to exist first?).

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