conversation_ai_create_agent

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what the annotations already provide. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, implying side effects, but the description adds no context about the creation process, consequences, or side effects. Since it adds nothing beyond the verb 'Create', it fails to enrich the agent's understanding.

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 at three words, but it is under-specified for a tool with 19 parameters. While it wastes no words, it is not appropriately sized; it provides minimal value and could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose. The brevity here is not a virtue but a deficiency.

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 (19 parameters, no output schema, and no behavioral annotations beyond basic flags), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the agent is, what the parameters represent, or what the expected outcome is. The agent would need to rely entirely on the schema, potentially leading to misconfiguration.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters; it simply says 'Create an Agent' without explaining relationships, required vs optional, or any interpretative guidance. The schema already documents every parameter, so the description adds no value beyond what is structural.

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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('an Agent'), clearly indicating the tool's purpose. However, it does not distinguish from other agent-creation tools such as voice_ai_create_agent or agent_studio_create_agent, as the description is generic and lacks the 'conversation_ai' context that the tool name implies.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or related tools, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone. The description is a single imperative with no supporting information.

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