post_team

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered structurally. The description adds zero behavioral context: no note on required permissions, whether the name must be unique, or side effects like default membership. No contradiction with annotations, but no added value.

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?

It is short, but the second sentence repeats the first word-for-word, so it is redundant rather than concise. Nothing is front-loaded beyond the bare verb.

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 create/mutation tool with a nested request body, no output schema, and no annotation-supplied detail about success behavior, the description omits everything an agent needs beyond the obvious: required fields, uniqueness constraints, and what the response contains. Inadequate despite the tool's simplicity.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0% for the nested body object, the description should compensate, but it does not mention the required 'name' field or the optional 'description' field. The schema does at least carry per-field descriptions, so this is not the worst case, but the prose contributes nothing.

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 'Create a team. Create a new team.' restates the tool name verbatim without adding scope, preconditions, or differentiation from siblings such as post_team_members or put_team. An agent can infer the verb+resource (create a team), but that is already fully conveyed by the tool name itself.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (put_team for updates, get_team for reads), and no prerequisites. The duplicated sentence conveys nothing about context.

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