team_init

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: the vault is encrypted SQLite and a passphrase is mandatory. It omits critical creation semantics — whether an existing file at `path` is overwritten or errors out, whether the operation is destructive, and what a successful call returns.

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 filler, with the core action front-loaded and the requirement trailing. Every clause 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 two-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it makes and what it needs. The one meaningful gap is overwrite/error behavior for an existing path, which matters for a file-creating tool.

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 100%, so both `path` and `passphrase` are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the passphrase requirement but adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 new shared team vault'), plus the storage format (encrypted SQLite). This clearly separates it from sibling operations like team_push, team_pull, team_list and team_delete, though it never names those siblings as alternatives.

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 only usage signal is the prerequisite 'Requires a passphrase.' There is no statement of when to call this versus listing existing vaults (team_list) or when not to call it, so the agent must infer placement in a workflow.

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