Add team account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Assign' implies a write operation, but it does not disclose effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing assignments), permission requirements, or reversibility. The description is too sparse to convey behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary detail, though for conciseness alone it scores well.

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 tool with two required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. An agent does not know what the parameters refer to, what the tool returns, or how it fits into the broader workflow (e.g., whether accounts must be connected first). Minimal context is provided.

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%, and the description does not mention either parameter. The schema only provides names and types, leaving teamId and accountId without any semantic explanation (e.g., what they reference or any constraints). The description adds no value over 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?

The description 'Assign an account to a team' clearly states a specific action (assign) on two resources (account, team). It distinguishes from the sibling remove_team_account, though it could be more explicit about the nature of the relationship (e.g., linking an existing account to a team). Not a tautology; it adds meaning beyond the name.

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 tool versus alternatives. The sibling remove_team_account exists, but the description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios. An agent must infer the appropriate context from the name alone.

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