pm_create_team

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the HTTP method and fields, but does not mention authorization needs, idempotency, side effects, or what happens on success/failure. This is insufficient for a create operation.

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 sentence that fronts the HTTP endpoint and key details. It contains no redundant information and is efficient.

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?

The tool is relatively simple (2 parameters, one nested), but the description is minimal. It does not mention return values (though an output schema exists) or error handling. For a create tool, more context would be beneficial, but it is not severely lacking.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by specifying the expected payload fields (name, optional organization_id). However, it does not address the x_user_id parameter or clarify the structure of the payload (e.g., additional properties allowed). This partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 clearly states the HTTP method, endpoint, and key fields (name, optional organization_id), making the tool's purpose clear. However, it could be more explicit that it creates a new team. Among sibling create tools, it is distinguishable by the endpoint and field specification.

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 like pm_create_organization or pm_create_project. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions for use.

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