vk_put_teams_dd5552eb152c

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

The description contradicts the input schema by calling the body field 'optional' while the schema marks it as required. It also mentions 'path and query parameters' and 'original parameter names' that do not exist in the schema (additionalProperties is false). These misleading statements fail to disclose behavior transparently, especially in the absence of any annotations.

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 fairly short, but it redundantly repeats 'Creates a new team' twice. The additional proxy-specific notes are relevant but could be condensed, and the structure is not ideally front-loaded with unique information. It earns a mid score for being brief but not optimally concise.

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?

For a simple tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return value/response and any caveats. It fails to mention what is returned or error behavior, and it introduces a schema contradiction. The description is not complete enough to guide an AI agent without additional assumptions.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100% (body has a description), the tool description adds some context like 'JSON request payload' and alias support. However, the misleading 'optional body field' undermines the accuracy of the parameter semantics. The extra information is partially incorrect, so the description does not cleanly add value beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Creates a new team.' It also specifies the raw Vikunja REST endpoint 'PUT /teams', which distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle other HTTP methods or resources. The verb and resource are explicit and unambiguous.

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 usage instructions such as passing the JSON payload in the body field, handling path/query parameters as top-level fields, and supporting camelCase/snake_case aliases. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other team creation tools), leaving the usage context only implied by calling it a 'raw proxy.'

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