team_create

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does much of it: it discloses irreversible-sounding state changes (mints a new key, switches the scope to encrypted envelope mode) and a hard failure condition. Gaps remain around required permissions and whether the mode switch can be undone, which matters for a genesis operation.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the failure condition last. Every clause (key minting, genesis owner, envelope mode, failure) carries information an agent needs.

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 single-optional-parameter bootstrap tool with an output schema handling returns, this covers purpose, side effects, and failure mode well. Missing only the preconditions (does a device/account need to be set up first?) and the relationship to the team_join path.

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 `remote` parameter is already documented, and the description adds nothing about it (e.g. what pinning does or how it interacts with the team scope). Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

"Create the team scope (genesis)" gives a specific verb and resource, and the following clauses spell out the concrete effects: DEK minting, genesis-owner admission, and switching to encrypted envelope mode. An agent can distinguish this from team_join or team_grant without opening any schema.

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?

"Fails if a team already exists" supplies an explicit exclusion condition, which implies when not to use it. However, it never names the alternative (team_join) as the path for existing teams, so the routing guidance stops one step short of a 5.

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