create_agent

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It merely says 'Define a new specialist agent' without mentioning that this is a write operation, whether it persists data, requires specific permissions, or what happens on success. The lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap for a creation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy, earning its place. However, it is somewhat under-specified given the tool's 5 parameters, so while it is concise, it sacrifices necessary content for brevity.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., agent ID), the prerequisites such as a sessionId, or any follow-up actions. The description is inadequate for an agent to confidently invoke the tool in a real workflow.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already explains all five parameters. The description adds a marginal hint that the 'description' parameter uses natural language, but it does not enrich the meaning of other parameters like 'tools' or 'persona'. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Define' with the resource 'a new specialist agent', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_agent and remove_agent. The phrase 'via natural language description' also clarifies the core creation method.

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 this tool is for creating new agents, which is a clear context, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus update_agent or list_agents. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, so the usage is only implied by the tool's name and sibling context.

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