Add team account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the low-level safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no statement on idempotency (what happens if the account is already on the team), required permissions, or whether the assignment is reversible. For a mutation tool it is thin.

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?

A single short sentence with zero waste and the action front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficient — there was room for a clarifying clause at no cost to brevity.

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?

A mutation tool with no output schema, no parameter documentation, and annotations that only cover safety hints. An agent cannot tell from this definition what constitutes success or failure (duplicate assignment, invalid team, permission errors), which matters for correct invocation.

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 0% — neither teamId nor accountId is documented in the schema, and the description does not compensate. The names are largely self-explanatory, but there is no statement of expected ID format (opaque ID vs slug) or whether the account must belong to the caller's organization.

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 ('assign') and both resources (account, team), so the action is unambiguous and distinguishable from the sibling remove_team_account. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or the team/account relationship, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus remove_team_account, create_team, or update_team, and no preconditions (e.g. account must already be connected, team must exist). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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