tempo_create_team

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

The description discloses a complete confirmation protocol not visible in the annotations: client-supported prompt first, otherwise a preview plus confirmToken on the first call, followed by a repeat call with the same arguments only after explicit user approval. This goes well beyond the readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=true signal. The destructiveHint label is semantically loose for a create operation, but the description's confirmation-first behavior is compatible with it, so there is no contradiction.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a short first sentence, and the second sentence packs the entire confirmation fallback into a few clauses. It is somewhat dense and parenthetical, but no sentence is wasted.

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 5-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description explains the essential interaction: confirmation, preview, and token-based second call. It does not describe the success response shape or the contents of the preview, but the reference to MCP_CONFIRM_MODE and the schema's confirmToken field cover the main invocation requirements.

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?

The input schema documents all five parameters at 100% coverage, including a detailed confirmToken description. The tool description adds process-level context about confirmToken usage but no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description opens with the specific verb-resource pair 'Create a new Tempo team,' which clearly identifies the action and target. This distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like tempo_create_worklog, tempo_create_plan, and tempo_create_account solely by the resource type, even without naming them.

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 first sentence explicitly states the trigger: creating a new Tempo team. It does not enumerate when-not-to-use conditions or alternatives, and the confirmation flow is operational context rather than usage guidance, but the purpose is clear enough to select this tool among the create_* siblings.

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