create_team

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions 'Create or refresh,' hinting at possible idempotency or upsert behavior, but it does not explain side effects, prerequisites, permissions, what 'refresh' entails, or what happens to an existing team.

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 no wasted words and the core action is front-loaded. However, it achieves conciseness by omitting valuable context, so it is not a perfect score.

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 six parameters, four required fields, and no annotations, this description is far too thin. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description still leaves major gaps around what a 'local coordination team' is, how 'refresh' behaves, and what the required identifiers mean.

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 0%, yet the description provides no meaning for any of the six parameters, including required ones like team_id, workspace_id, name, and owner_actor_id. The phrase 'local coordination team' only weakly implies what some parameters might represent, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Create or refresh') and a resource ('local coordination team'), which is clear enough to understand the tool's core purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the tool name and stated resource make its role reasonably distinct from creation/registration tools for other entities.

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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as register_workspace, register_actor, create_assignment, or get_team_board. The intended call context is only implied by the name 'create_team' and the high-level phrase 'local coordination team.'

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