invariance_agent_create

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds a concrete behavioral requirement—the auth type needed (user-session JWT vs agent API key)—which is not captured in annotations. It does not contradict annotations, and the auth requirement is a meaningful extra behavioral detail for the agent to act on.

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 sentences with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded, and the auth prerequisite is clearly stated as a secondary point. Every word earns its place; there is zero redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description need not explain return values. All required parameters are documented in the schema, and the description covers the critical auth requirement and project scoping. It lacks mention of side effects like the agent appearing in a dashboard, but that's implied by 'visible in the dashboard' in the schema. Overall, the necessary call-time information is present.

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 each parameter is already described. The description does not elaborate on parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides, though it does reiterate the project scope. The schema handles param semantics, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds little beyond what the schema already states.

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'), a specific resource ('a new agent'), and a scoping condition ('inside one of the caller's projects'). It clearly differentiates from sibling agent tools like invariance_agent_list, invariance_agent_get, and invariance_agent_set_key, which handle other operations. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives a clear prerequisite: requires a user-session JWT (not an agent API key), and points to the CLI to obtain one. It also implies the use case (creating an agent within a project) but does not explicitly compare to alternatives. It's helpful but lacks an explicit 'use this when' statement or exclusion of other agent tools.

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