tempo_create_team

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the full confirmation protocol: elicitation when supported, otherwise a preview plus confirmToken fallback requiring a second call. It also references MCP_CONFIRM_MODE, giving the agent critical behavioral context for a write operation.

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 two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and then describes the confirmation behavior without unnecessary filler. Every clause contributes to correct invocation.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the important non-obvious behavior: user confirmation and the two-step token flow. Annotations cover safety hints, and the schema covers parameters, so the definition is complete enough to call correctly.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds only a pointer to the confirmation flow and MCP_CONFIRM_MODE, while the detailed confirmToken semantics are already in the schema.

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 Tempo team.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as tempo_update_team, tempo_delete_team, and tempo_get_teams.

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 implies usage for creating a new team and explains the required confirmation workflow, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tempo_update_team. The context is still clear enough for an agent.

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