create-team

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

With no annotations, the description should provide behavioral details such as side effects, error conditions, or persistence guarantees. It only says 'Create a new Datadog team' without explaining, for example, that the tool will fail if the handle already exists.

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?

Single sentence, no redundant information. Efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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 tool with only 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness about return values, error scenarios, or uniqueness constraints.

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%, and the description merely repeats the parameter names without adding semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline is 3.

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 creates a new Datadog team, specifying the resource and the key fields (name, handle, description). It distinguishes from siblings like update-team (modification) and get-team (reading).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update-team for modifications) or what prerequisites are needed (e.g., handle uniqueness). Usage context is implied but not clarified.

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