goclaw_team_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new agent team' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't specify required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, or what the response contains (e.g., team ID). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

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, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward creation tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool (create) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., returns a team object/ID), error conditions, or behavioral nuances. For a tool that modifies system state, more context about outcomes and constraints would help the agent use it correctly.

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%, with all parameters (name, description, member_agent_ids) having clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 'Create a new agent team' clearly states the action (create) and resource (agent team), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like goclaw_team_get, goclaw_team_list, goclaw_team_update, and goclaw_team_delete by specifying creation rather than retrieval, listing, modification, or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like goclaw_agent_create or goclaw_memory_create beyond the resource type.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing agents for member_agent_ids), when creation is appropriate versus updating existing teams, or how it relates to sibling tools like goclaw_team_update for modifications. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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