Set up a folder for TeamOnly

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key side effects: file/app creation in an empty folder and, notably, mutation of an existing project by adding teamonly.json and tool-specific instruction files. It does not say whether existing files are overwritten, whether the operation is idempotent, or whether auth/trial state is required.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary empty-folder behavior, then the existing-app behavior, then the template-list affordance. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 mutating setup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what gets created but omits prerequisites (the sibling tools sign_in/start_trial/subscribe suggest an account or trial gate) and what the success/failure result looks like. Adequate but with a material gap for a first-run bootstrap command.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: leaving 'template' out is a discovery mode that lists available templates, and the 'template' values named in the description correspond to the schema's list. It adds little for 'directory' beyond what the schema already says.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('creates a starter app') and covers the second mode ('adds teamonly.json and the TeamOnly instructions'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like get_app_rules or deploy. It never names a sibling to contrast with, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Gives clear usage conditions based on folder state: empty folder vs. a folder with an existing app, and notes that omitting 'template' returns the template list. It does not say where this fits in the overall flow (e.g., before deploy, or whether sign_in/start_trial is required first).

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