Create agent

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so those need not be repeated. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by stating the sign-in dependency on role assignment, which the schema does not encode. It remains silent on other meaningful behaviors for a write tool: duplicate-email handling, whether an invitation is sent, and required permissions.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. For a 15-parameter mutation tool it is arguably over-terse rather than bloated, which costs a point on structure.

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?

With 15 parameters, 47% schema coverage, and no annotation detail beyond hints, the description does not do enough to make the tool safe and correct to call. An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but error conditions, invitation behavior, and the semantics of most optional fields are all absent.

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 only 47% across 15 parameters, so the description would ideally carry more weight. It does contribute one important nuance — that roles is effectively required despite the schema marking only first_name and email as required — but says nothing about the remaining undocumented fields (time_zone, reporting_manager_id, department_ids, observer_of, occasional).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create an agent"), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings in an overlapping cluster such as create_requester and convert_requester_to_agent, so an agent must already know which one it wants.

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 second sentence gives a real invocation prerequisite (at least one role, tied to sign-in), which is useful. It offers no when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance and never names the close alternatives (create_requester, convert_requester_to_agent), leaving the tool-selection decision implicit.

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