Create a new procedure for an ElevenLabs agent branch, optionally defining its name, type, content, trigger, and parent folder.
Create Procedure
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Procedure name | |
| type | No | ||
| content | No | Initial procedure content | |
| trigger | No | ||
| agent_id | Yes | Agent ID to get the procedure draft from | |
| branch_id | Yes | Branch ID to get the procedure draft from | |
| folder_parent_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, giving the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond those annotations, such as permission needs, what is created from the supplied agent_id/branch_id draft, or side effects.
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 short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks the structure needed to convey purpose, requirements, or behavior for a seven-parameter creation route.
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 non-idempotent, open-world creation tool with seven parameters and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It omits the draft-source role of the required agent_id and branch_id, the meaning of creation, and any usage context.
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 schema covers only 57% of the seven parameters with descriptions, and the description contributes no additional parameter meaning. Undocumented fields such as type, trigger, and folder_parent_id receive no explanation from either source.
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 "Create Procedure" simply restates the tool name create_procedure_route and adds no scope, object, or distinguishing detail. It does not differentiate this tool from sibling route-creation tools such as create_agent_draft_route or create_branch_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 alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the draft/branch context implied by the required parameters. The agent is left to infer everything from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.