team_synthesize

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It explains the tool proposes a merged version and shows contributions/consensus/failures, but does not disclose whether it modifies stored data, requires permissions, or has side effects. The word 'proposes' hints at read-only behavior but is ambiguous.

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 four sentences, starting with a title-like phrase and covering purpose, output, and usage. It is efficient but could be more condensed; each sentence adds value, though the list of displayed items could be integrated more concisely.

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 tool has only 2 simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main use case and usage guidance. However, it lacks behavioral transparency (mutability, side effects) and does not formally describe output format, leaving some gaps for a merge 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 description coverage is 100% with clear param descriptions (instance_id UUID, topic slug). The description adds no new meaning beyond stating the tool's purpose; it does not elaborate on param format or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool merges multiple contributors' lessons into a canonical version, specifying the verb 'merge' and resource 'lessons'. It distinguishes from siblings like team_learn (adds a lesson) or brain_diff (compares) by describing its unique merging function.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use this when onboarding new team members or before documenting a process.' It also implies the condition 'When 2+ developers store lessons,' but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives for single-contributor scenarios.

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