Create tribe

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses several important behaviors: private tribes return a view-only shareUrl, visibility is restricted to the owner/members/pending invitees, tags are accepted but not persisted, and the response shape is listed. This goes well beyond the minimal readOnly/destructive hints.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds behavioral detail, alternatives, and the return shape in a logical order. It is dense but not bloated; the only slightly extraneous detail is the aside about rotating the shareUrl from the tribe's web page, which is still useful.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly listing the returned fields. It also covers the privacy model, the ignored tags parameter, and the related sibling tools for updating and inviting. An agent has enough context to call this tool correctly without opening any other definition.

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?

The input schema already covers all four parameters with 100% coverage, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful runtime semantics for isPublic (private visibility and shareUrl behavior) and reinforces that tags should be omitted because they are not stored. This is valuable supplementary context 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 verb and resource: 'Create a new tribe you own,' and defines what a tribe is — a standing group you can later recruit onto a jury. It explicitly distinguishes tribes from 'a one-off jury seat,' which prevents confusion with create_case or jury-related tools.

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 gives strong usage context: it explains the public/private distinction, notes that private tribes are hidden from tribeunal_list_tribes, and routes post-creation actions to tribeunal_update_tribe and tribeunal_invite_tribe_members. It does not explicitly say 'use this instead of X when,' but the lifecycle alternatives are clear enough.

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