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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the agent is shared across the team, that it fails if the team's plan limit is reached, and that it returns the agent's id. It also hints at behavior by saying 'Fails if the team has reached its plan's agent limit,' which is a useful constraint. However, it does not disclose any side effects beyond creation, such as whether existing agents are affected, but for a create operation that is acceptable.

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 well-structured, starting with a clear purpose, followed by parameter summary, and ending with return value and failure condition. It is concise with no redundancy, and uses sentence structure that is easy to parse. Front-loads the key information about what an agent is and that it is shared.

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 tool's complexity (7 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description is thorough. It covers the purpose, parameters, return value, and a key failure condition. Despite not having an output schema, it explains the return format ('id'). It also directs users to `describe_agent_settings` for details on nested objects, making it complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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%, so the schema already describes each parameter. The description adds value by clarifying that `custom_personality_description` is required when `personality_preset` is 'custom', and by pointing to `describe_agent_settings` for the nested objects, which helps agents know how to fill those. It also clarifies the boolean nature of `repurpose_textual_content`. This goes beyond just listing parameters.

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 what the tool does: creates a processing 'agent' (a saved configuration) that controls video processing and rendering. It identifies the verb 'Create', the resource 'agent', and explains its purpose. It differentiates from siblings by noting it returns an 'id' used in submit_video, and mentions team-level sharing and limits, which is distinct.

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 provides some usage context: it says the returned id is passed to submit_video)Skip. However, it does not explicitly contrast with update_agent or list_agents to clarify when to use this versus those. It lacks exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance. The context of creating vs. updating is implied but not made explicit.

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