create_team

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool requires Stripe configuration and will fail with InternalServerError otherwise, which is a critical behavioral trait. It does not detail permissions or side effects, but the output schema exists, and the description is not misleading.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with a clear purpose statement and a warning. It is front-loaded, no fluff, and every sentence adds value. Perfectly sized for the complexity.

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 has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the core purpose, a critical behavioral constraint (Stripe dependency), and usage guidance. For a 2-parameter creation tool, this is complete and sufficient.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning or context for the 'name' and 'slug' parameters beyond what the schema already provides. No improvement over the schema.

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 clearly states 'Create a new team' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_teams, get_team, update_team, delete_team, and other create tools by warning about Stripe dependency and suggesting using existing teams, clarifying the tool's unique purpose.

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 explicitly warns about the Stripe billing prerequisite and failure mode, and advises 'For most use cases, use existing teams' which tells the agent when to avoid this tool and consider alternatives like listing existing teams.

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