sigma_create_team

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

Annotations already convey that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. The description adds no new behavioral context such as side effects, idempotency, uniqueness constraints, or required permissions. There is no contradiction with the annotations, but the description is redundant with them.

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 a single short sentence that immediately states the purpose. There is no wasted wording or unnecessary structure. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple create operation.

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?

Although the tool has only two parameters and an output schema is present, the description is too minimal to be contextually complete. It does not mention naming conventions, uniqueness requirements, required permissions, or how this creation relates to team members or workspace context. The agent receives only the most basic purpose.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the 'name' or 'description' parameters. The schema itself gives field names and types, but the description does not add any meaning beyond those labels. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 exactly what the tool does: create a new team. It uses a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from sibling tools like sigma_delete_team, sigma_list_teams, and sigma_get_team. However, it gives no additional detail about team properties or the creation context.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives or about prerequisites such as permissions or existing workspace context. The description is a bare imperative sentence and does not help the agent decide between creation and other team-related operations.

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