create_agent

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

With no annotations at all, the description has to cover behavior itself. It does disclose one valuable fact beyond the schema: the tool requires the `users:manage` permission. But it says nothing about side effects (welcome email, notifications), what happens on duplicate email, whether the creation is reversible, or what the response contains — a significant gap for a creation tool on a user-account resource.

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?

It is very short and front-loads the verb and permission, with no filler prose. The 'POST /api/v1/agents' and 'Tags: Agents' lines are near-redundant with the name but efficient and harmless.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin: it doesn't explain what is returned, how errors are surfaced, or how the create-only parameters interact. The permission note helps but leaves the agent guessing about most of the tool's contract.

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%, so the schema already explains all 9 fields, including which are update-only. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable at this coverage level but is not worth more than baseline.

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 title line 'Create Agent' gives a specific verb plus resource, and the POST /api/v1/agents line confirms a creation endpoint. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like update_agent or delete_agent, but the verb makes the distinction self-evident in context.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites beyond a permission, and no alternatives — it never says to use update_agent when the agent already exists or what to do on duplicate email. The agent has to infer the conditions for calling this from the name alone.

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