create_agent_route

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that, though 'Create' is at least consistent with a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation rather than contradicting it.

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?

Two words are not 'concise' here but under-specified; the phrase is front-loaded but carries no information an agent can act on.

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 complex creation tool with nested conversation_config, workflow, and platform_settings objects, no output schema, and no annotation-to-description elaboration, the definition is entirely inadequate for correct invocation.

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?

With 6 parameters, a required conversation_config, nested objects, and only 17% schema description coverage, the description supplies zero parameter meaning and does not compensate for the widespread undocumented fields.

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 is the two-word phrase "Create Agent", which merely restates the tool name and title. It states a verb and resource but adds no scope, and does not distinguish this from siblings such as create_agent_draft_route, duplicate_agent_route, or create_agent_deployment_route.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other agent-creation siblings, nor any prerequisites, required permissions, or context about draft vs. live agents.

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