create_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds useful behavioral context — the call returns the created agent's ID, and creation does not include the prompt, which is set in a separate follow-up call. It omits auth requirements, side effects, and reversibility, which are notable gaps for a creation operation.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the action, the return value, and the follow-on step. The core purpose is front-loaded with 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 simple 3-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the return ID, and the next step (update_agent_prompt), which is the key lifecycle context. Remaining gaps are minor — no guidance on what happens if all parameters are omitted (0 required) or how the returned ID is consumed by sibling tools.

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%, and the schema already documents name, language (with default and examples), and description. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 action and resource — 'Create a new AI agent in your organization' — with the verb 'create' cleanly distinguishing it from read siblings (get_agents), mutation siblings (update_agent_prompt, update_agent_config), and delete_agent. The return value (agent ID) is also disclosed, further clarifying the tool's contract.

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 explicitly routes prompt-setting to update_agent_prompt ('The agent prompt is set separately via update_agent_prompt after creation'), giving the agent a concrete when-not and sequencing cue. It does not, however, spell out when to prefer this over get_agents or update_agent_config, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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