rybbit_create_team

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the required role and OAuth scope, which is critical behavioral context for safe invocation. It also mentions the optional assignment of members and sites. It does not describe return values or side effects, but for a create operation this is acceptable.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and optional behavior, while the second sentence states the required permissions. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 4-parameter create tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, prerequisites, and optional assignments. It does not explain the response format, but the agent can reasonably infer a success indication. It is adequate but not exhaustive, earning a 4.

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 already provides descriptions for all 4 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds only minor clarification by noting that members and sites are optional assignments, which is already implied by the schema's required fields. Thus, the description adds little beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a team in an organization.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_teams, update_team, and delete_team, and also notes optional member/site assignment, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly states a prerequisite: 'Requires org admin/owner role and the org:write scope,' which tells the agent when the tool can be used. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the create/update/delete naming convention among siblings makes the context clear.

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