Create or edit an agent

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds the highest-value behavioral fact beyond them: autoPublishPosts arms publishing with no human approval and requires an elevated scope. It does not disclose edit semantics for omitted fields on a mutation tool where nothing is required, which is the one remaining behavioral gap.

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 compact sentences with zero filler, and the create/edit rule is front-loaded ahead of the permission caveats so the reader gets the decision rule first.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and modes plus scope requirements are covered. The missing piece is patch semantics on edit (whether an omitted field is cleared or preserved) for a tool with zero required parameters.

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 coverage is 91%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already carries most parameter meaning. The description goes beyond it by attaching mode semantics to 'id' and a consequence/scope warning to 'autoPublishPosts', which the schema alone conveys only partially.

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 opening clause gives a precise verb+resource pair and resolves the upsert ambiguity outright: create when 'no id', edit 'with id'. That distinguishes it cleanly from agents_list and agents_wake without the agent needing to open a schema.

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?

It states the condition that selects each mode (id present or absent) and the permission prerequisites ('publish scope' for autoPublishPosts, 'write' for everything else), which is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming sibling tools for listing or waking agents as alternatives.

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