create_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'under supervisor management' but does not explain implications like authorization needs, side effects of creation, or any limits (e.g., maximum agents). The description focuses on recommendations rather than revealing operational behaviors beyond the clear mutation action.

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 with two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second provides actionable recommendations. It is front-loaded with the most critical information, and every sentence serves a clear function without waste.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should compensate by explaining return values (e.g., created agent object) and operational nuances like whether creation is immediate or asynchronous. It fails to mention constraints such as name uniqueness or context about 'supervisor management', making it incomplete for a creation tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by recommending model and systemPrompt and advising to ask about purpose, but it does not provide additional meaning for individual parameters beyond what the schema already describes. The recommendations are general and do not deepen parameter understanding.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'AI agent', with the specific context 'under supervisor management'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'update_agent' and 'get_agents' by focusing on creation. The recommendation to provide model and systemPrompt further clarifies the intended action.

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 clear usage guidance by recommending the provision of model and systemPrompt and advising to ask the user about the agent's purpose and capabilities. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for updates or deletes) or mention any prerequisites, which limits full decision support.

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