Create team

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-readonly, non-destructive, open-world creation operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that accounts can be optionally assigned at creation; it says nothing about duplicate-name/slug behavior, side effects on the organization, or error conditions for a mutation tool with openWorldHint=true.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Brevity is not the problem here; the issue is that it is too thin rather than too verbose.

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 creation/mutation tool with five undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotation beyond hints needs more: what fields are auto-generated vs. required, what accountIds expects, and what a successful create returns or how it can fail. The one-line description leaves these gaps open.

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%, so all five parameters (name, slug, avatarUrl, accountIds, description) are documented only by type/constraints. The description touches only accountIds ('optionally assigning accounts') and leaves slug, avatarUrl, and description entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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') and is clearly distinct from siblings like list_teams, get_team, update_team, delete_team. It adds only the parenthetical about account assignment, so it's clear but does not differentiate beyond name/sibling naming.

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 vs. alternatives such as add_team_account or update_team, and no prerequisites (e.g., whether the caller must be an org admin). The only implied usage is 'create a new team, optionally with accounts', which is derivable 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.