Validate Team Config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so well: it states the operation is a dry run and explicitly says it writes nothing to disk. It also enumerates the validation checks performed, which helps the agent understand what the tool will and won't catch.

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 compact and front-loaded: it leads with the core purpose, then the usage context, then the side-effect guarantee. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording.

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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema documentation and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage timing, side effects, and validation scope, so an agent has enough to select and invoke it correctly.

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 value beyond the schema by clarifying what makes role codes illegal (Chinese characters, dashes, reserved names, duplicates), which informs valid values for the roles and leader parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('dry-run validation') and a specific resource ('custom team config'), and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling create_custom_team by noting it catches illegal role codes without writing to disk. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and what it is not.

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 says to use this tool 'before create_custom_team' and names the concrete failure classes it catches (Chinese characters, dashes, reserved names, duplicates). This gives clear when-to-use guidance relative to the most relevant sibling tool.

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