create_team

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'creates' a new team. It lacks details on permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a usage guideline. Both sentences are relevant, though the second sentence could be more efficiently integrated. There's minimal waste, but it's not perfectly structured.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., team ID, success confirmation), error handling, or dependencies like required permissions. For a create operation, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('name' and 'organizationSlug') adequately. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage but not enhancing understanding.

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 the action ('Create a new team') and resource ('in Sentry'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_project' beyond mentioning 'team' vs 'project', which is implicit but not explicit about when to choose one over the other.

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 a bullet point stating 'Use this tool when you need to: Create a new team in a Sentry organization', which gives basic context. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'list_teams' for checking existing teams, leaving some ambiguity about usage scenarios.

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