validate_team_config

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

With no annotations, the description adequately discloses the dry-run nature and that no data is written to disk. Lists specific checks (Chinese characters, dashes, reserved names, duplicates), but does not describe output schema or what happens on success/failure.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences with no extraneous words. Each sentence adds essential information: what the tool is and how to use it.

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 simple nature of the tool and 100% schema coverage with output schema present, the description covers purpose, usage, and key behavioral traits. Could mention what the output schema returns but that is optional.

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% and already describes parameters. The description adds context by mentioning specific validation checks (Chinese characters, etc.) and reinforces that leader must be one of roles, adding value beyond 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?

Clearly states verb 'validate' and resource 'custom team config', specifies it is a dry-run validation that checks for illegal role codes, and distinguishes from sibling 'create_custom_team' by indicating it should be used beforehand.

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 instructs to use before `create_custom_team` and explains benefits (catching errors without writing to disk). Does not provide explicit when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough for a validation tool.

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