fossa_create_team

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly warns 'WRITES TO FOSSA' and lists required environment variables, which aligns with readOnlyHint=false. It also discloses side effects of auto_add_users (automatic user additions) and unique_identifier's role in SCIM/SSO mapping. This is valuable contextual information that the annotations alone do not provide. The description does not contradict any annotation.

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 efficiently organized: a one-sentence purpose statement, a clear write-safety warning, and parameter details in a compact paragraph. Every sentence adds value – no filler, no repetition of schema structure. It is appropriately sized for a tool with five parameters and non-trivial side effects.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 params, write operation, side effects, dependency on external features), the description covers all critical aspects: purpose, required environment, parameter semantics, feature prerequisites, and cross-references to related tools. The presence of an output schema means return-value documentation is unnecessary. No significant gaps remain for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Despite the schema having 0% description coverage, the description thoroughly explains all parameters: default_role_id (with cross-reference to fossa_list_roles), auto_add_users (including its default and access implications), unique_identifier (SCIM/SSO external key), and team_group_ids (requires feature). This goes well beyond the bare schema definitions and gives the agent actionable guidance for each parameter.

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 'Create a FOSSA team' – a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like fossa_list_teams, fossa_get_team, fossa_update_team, and fossa_delete_team. The tool's name and title align, and the description leaves no ambiguity about its core function.

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 provides clear context: it is a write operation requiring FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES=true and FOSSA_ALLOW_ADMIN=true. It also explains the implications of parameters like auto_add_users ('widens access without another call') and team_group_ids ('requires the team groups feature to be enabled'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., fossa_update_team for modifications), though the name and sibling context make this implicit.

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