Teams: Create a team

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write. The description adds real context beyond that: the required User API key header, the extra_body merge behavior, and how Persian/Arabic-Indic text and digits are handled. It omits return/side-effect details, but the annotation baseline lowers the burden.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then auth, body fields, and encoding notes. Mostly compact, though the raw POST path and full endpoint add some implementation noise for an agent that only needs the action and inputs.

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 5-parameter create tool with a nested extra_body object and no output schema, the description covers auth, the body contract, and the passthrough mechanism well. It does not describe the created resource's shape, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description restates the body field names (name, description, allow_auto_assign) and clarifies that account_id is a path element, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a team in the account'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the get/update/delete/list team siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'Create'; there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance or reference to sibling tools such as gapify_update_team or gapify_list_teams. The note about extra_body hints at an escape hatch but does not frame usage conditions.

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