Create a logical team with a supervisor agent to coordinate delegated tasks across coding-agent CLIs, enabling team-based supervision and agent messaging.
Create a top-level logical team. This tool is available to external control-tower hosts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| supervisor_agent_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the creation of a team, but does not disclose side effects, permissions required, idempotency, or what happens on success or failure. This is minimal for a mutating 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 short and front-loaded with the core action, but it is under-specified. While concise, it does not earn its brevity because key information about parameters and usage is missing.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain parameters, return values, prerequisites, or any operational context. An agent would struggle to call this tool correctly without additional information.
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 the description must compensate. It does not mention either 'name' or 'supervisor_agent_id' at all, leaving their meaning and relationships unexplained. The description adds no value beyond the parameter names themselves.
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 clear verb 'Create' and a specific resource 'top-level logical team', distinguishing it from sibling tools like team_status and team_list which are read-only. It also adds context about availability to external control-tower hosts, which is a useful constraint.
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 mentions availability to external control-tower hosts, which is a constraint rather than usage guidance. No exclusions or explicit conditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.