create_team_access_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool creates a token, implying a write/mutation operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements beyond the parameters, rate limits, token expiration, or what the output looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose and mechanism without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the complexity of an OAuth token creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., security implications, error handling) and does not explain return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective use.

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 100%, with all three parameters (client_id, client_secret, code) well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Create a new team access token') and the mechanism ('by exchanging an authorization code'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_access_token' (likely for individual users) and 'delete_team_access_token' (for removal). It provides a precise verb+resource combination with technical context.

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 implies usage in an OAuth flow context ('by exchanging an authorization code'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_access_token' or prerequisites. It offers some contextual guidance but lacks explicit when/when-not directives or named alternatives.

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