create_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool 'Creates' (implying mutation/write operation) and 'Returns: agent ID and details' (output behavior), but lacks crucial behavioral context: permissions required, whether creation is idempotent, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' includes. For a complex creation tool with 17 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: first sentence states action and return, second provides usage context. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 complexity (17 parameters, creation/mutation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, creation constraints, error handling, or what 'details' in the return includes. For a tool that creates a complex resource with many configuration options, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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% (no parameter descriptions in schema), and the tool has 17 parameters (3 required). The description provides NO parameter information whatsoever - it doesn't explain what 'name', 'first_message', 'system_prompt', or any of the 14 optional parameters mean or how they affect agent creation. This leaves the agent guessing about parameter purposes and interactions.

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's purpose: 'Creates conversational AI agent' with specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_agent' (read) and 'list_agents' (list), but doesn't explicitly contrast with other creation tools like 'create_voice_from_preview'.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use when: setting up voice-enabled chatbot or assistant.' This gives clear guidance on when to invoke the tool. However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or alternatives (e.g., using existing agents vs. creating new ones).

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