create_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens on duplicate agent names, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds useful context about configuration and assignment. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for parameters given the low schema coverage.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or detailed parameter meanings. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, the description should provide more comprehensive guidance.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but adds minimal parameter semantics. It mentions 'specified configuration' vaguely but doesn't explain what the 4 parameters mean, their relationships, or constraints. The description doesn't clarify what 'specialization' or 'system_prompt_suffix' do, leaving parameters largely undocumented.

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 clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('new Claude Code agent') with specific context ('within a managed session'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_session' (creates session vs agent) and 'delete_agent' (destructive vs constructive). The purpose is specific and 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 implies usage context ('within a managed session', 'for collaborative development work') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like 'create_session' or prerequisites. It mentions assignment to a session but lacks explicit guidance on when-not-to-use or comparison with sibling tools.

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