create_agent

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

With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior: it mentions 'scaffold_applied: true' in response and that at least one of description/prompt is recommended. However, it does not discuss idempotency, error cases, or side effects like permanent creation.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then explains key features, and uses a clean Args list. Every sentence adds value, though it is slightly longer than necessary.

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 create tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers creation flow, parameter relationships, and a response hint (scaffold_applied). Missing details like return format or error handling, but still solid.

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 0% (only titles provided), but the description adds detailed meaning: explains the difference between description and prompt, that tools are UUIDs from list_tools, and defaults like framework='langchain'. This compensates well for the schema gap.

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 'Create a new agent' with the verb 'create' and resource 'agent'. It distinguishes from siblings like update_agent and delete_agent through the specific action.

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 explains the two modes for system prompt (description vs. prompt) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus update_agent or other siblings. Usage context is implied but not compared directly.

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