create_agent

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key side effects: funded wallet, sponsored delegation, $3 welcome credit (first agent only, once per account), and the no-credit-line default. This goes well beyond a simple 'create' and explains the full behavior.

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 information-dense and front-loaded, but the long arrow-chain and embedded clarifications make it a bit dense. Still, every sentence adds value and no filler is present.

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 create operation with no output schema, the description covers return values, auth requirements, funding default, and the one-time credit edge case. It is complete enough for an agent to set expectations and avoid mistakes.

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 100%, so parameter semantics are already documented. The description adds context for borrow_limit_raw via the pay-as-you-go note but doesn't elaborate on max_rate_bps or expiry_seconds beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Provision a new managed agent end-to-end' and details the exact sequence (agent row, wallet, delegation, credit). It explicitly distinguishes itself from create_agent_key by noting it returns agentId/walletAddress/delegationTxHash, NOT an API key.

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 provides clear context: defaults to pay-as-you-go and directs 'upgrade later with open_credit_line', while also stating 'mint one with create_agent_key' for API keys. It also notes the developer key prerequisite, making when-to-use vs alternatives explicit.

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