create_custom_team

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the force mode's archival behavior, the v3 topology change, and that custom teams leave shared/ empty. It lacks mention of auth or rate limits, but these are less critical.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized into logical sections: role codes, topology, custom team specifics, force behavior. It is slightly verbose with spec references but remains focused and well-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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameters, side effects, post-creation steps, and sibling tool reference. It is highly complete for a tool with 5 parameters and complex behavior.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining role codes become part of filenames, leader must be in roles, force archives files, and lang defaults to zh. This enriches the bare parameter descriptions.

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 an FCoP project with a custom roster of roles,' which clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like validate_team_config (pre-check) and init_project/init_solo (preset-based) by focusing on custom role rosters.

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?

Explicitly advises using validate_team_config first to catch invalid role codes. It implies when to use this tool (custom teams) vs presets by noting that custom teams lack bundled docs, but does not give an explicit when-not-to-use list.

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