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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the safety bar is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context beyond them: the agent receives nothing until a runtime is connected, and every request starts in the entry pipeline with branching on /agent/slug.

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?

Front-loaded with the imperative verb+resource, then dense but non-redundant sentences on runtime and pipeline setup. No filler; every sentence carries actionable information.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential post-creation mental model (runtime connection and entry-pipeline rules). Combined with the annotations carrying the safety profile and the schema carrying full parameter docs, nothing critical is missing.

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%, so kind, name and slug are already fully documented in the schema, including the service/personal distinction and the slug format rules. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Create an agent") that is immediately distinguishable from read/update/archive siblings. It names related tools (create_agent_instance, create_provisioner_token) but doesn't explicitly contrast create_agent with update_agent or the instance tools, leaving full sibling differentiation to inference.

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?

Provides clear workflow context: it explains that a created agent is inert until a runtime is connected and names the two paths (withhuman CLI, or create_agent_instance/create_provisioner_token). This tells an agent where this tool sits in the sequence, though it never states an explicit when-not-to-use condition.

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