create_ai_agent

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true), the description adds value by disclosing hard prerequisites (feature flags must be enabled) and a side effect (auto-generated ACLs). It does not contradict any annotation.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes only high-value context: prerequisites and optional behavior. No filler or repetition.

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 straightforward create tool with a fully described schema and annotations, the description is sufficiently complete: it states purpose, prerequisites, and a key side effect. The lack of an output schema is not a major gap since create tools conventionally return the created object, though mentioning that explicitly would strengthen it.

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 four parameters. The description's mention of 'optional auto-generated ACLs' basically restates the auto_generate_acls property description without adding new parameter-level detail.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Create an AI agent definition', which clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like get_ai_agent, list_ai_agents, and create_agentic_workflow. The mention of 'optional auto-generated ACLs' adds precision about what the creation involves.

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 provides clear operational context by stating the required flags (NOW_ASSIST_ENABLED + WRITE_ENABLED) and the optional ACL generation behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool compared to similar creation tools like create_agentic_workflow.

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