Set team

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful domain behavior — that setting a team determines which goal the robot scores in — but doesn't state whether the choice persists across games or can be changed mid-game.

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 core action is front-loaded in sentence one, with supporting scoring context and the control-panel alternative afterward. Slightly verbose, but every sentence contributes relevant information.

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 single-enum-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description supplies enough context to call it correctly. Persistence/reversibility of the choice remains the only notable gap.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does partially compensate by explaining that 'colour' defines the team and its associated goal/barrels. The enum values themselves are self-documenting, so this is close to adequate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Choose the robot's team') and frames it in a distinct scenario (start of a goal game). It is easily separated from siblings like team_list and select_player. The scope is 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?

Gives clear timing ('at the start of a goal game') and names an alternative path ('the person can also pick the team in the control panel'). It is missing explicit when-not guidance, but the context and alternative are stated rather than implied.

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