create_team

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 a real behavioral fact: the Kiln Business requirement attaches to the org owner's plan, not the caller's. That is genuinely useful context an agent cannot get from the schema. However, it says nothing about slug uniqueness, name collisions, error behavior, or what the created team looks like on return.

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 opening sentence earns its place, but the second paragraph is marketing boilerplate about Kiln Business and the third is an upgrade URL with tracking parameters. Roughly half the text is sales copy rather than operational guidance for the agent.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 17% schema coverage, an agent still lacks slug semantics, uniqueness constraints, and failure modes. The description spends its budget on plan gating and upsell instead of the operational gaps.

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 only 17% across six parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not: it never explains slug format or uniqueness, whether name must be unique in the org, or what created_by defaults to. The phrase "sub-group inside an org" weakly hints that parent_team_id enables nesting, but nothing is stated explicitly.

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?

"Create a team (sub-group) inside an org" names a specific verb (create), a specific resource (team), and its containment scope (inside an org). The parenthetical clarifies the org/team hierarchy, which distinguishes it from list_teams or delete_team without needing the schema.

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 states a prerequisite (the org owner must be on Kiln Business), which is usage-relevant, but it never says when to call this versus siblings like add_team_member, apply_role_template, or manage_team_member, nor what happens if the plan requirement is unmet.

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