Create Agent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of whether duplicate names are allowed, what is returned, or any auth/scope requirements.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is arguably too terse for a 5-parameter creation tool, so it does not earn top marks.

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 create tool with 5 parameters (2 required), a nested tools array, and no output schema, the description says nothing about what constitutes a valid agent or what the call returns. Annotations only cover the safety profile, leaving the description inadequate.

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 100% with 5 parameters, so the schema documents name, model, tools, description, and instructions. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which meets the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 and resource ('Create a new Mistral agent'), so the action is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings such as mistral_update_agent, mistral_delete_agent, or mistral_get_agent beyond the verb itself.

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 versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no note about what the created agent requires. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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