Create Team

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as name/slug uniqueness, side effects, permissions needed, or how member and admin IDs must relate. There is no contradiction, but the description contributes almost nothing beyond structured fields.

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?

It is a single sentence with no unnecessary elaboration, but 'from provided data' is redundant filler and the one sentence is not front-loaded with any actionable detail for a complex create operation. It is concise without being usefully structured.

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?

This is a complex mutation tool with a large nested request schema, many optional integration fields, feature-flag-gated attributes, and member/admin constraints, yet the description does not mention any of that. The output schema and annotations cover return values and safety profile, but the input behavior remains substantially unexplained.

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?

The description only says 'provided data' and does not explain the required name, the nested attributes shape, the deprecated slug behavior, or the many optional integration fields. Although the nested schema itself contains rich descriptions, the top-level parameter is undocumented in both the schema signal and the description, so the description fails to compensate.

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 states a specific verb and resource, 'Creates a new team', so an agent can distinguish it from list_teams, get_team, and update_team without opening the schema. The phrase 'from provided data' is tautological and adds no specificity, but the core purpose is still 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?

It gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_team or list_teams, and it states no prerequisites like required permissions or organization feature flags. The agent must infer all usage context.

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