create_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: key generation, config saving, and activation constraints. However, it omits details such as overwrite behavior, error handling, 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?

The description is three sentences, concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the technical details about the command could be slightly more condensed.

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?

Key behaviors are covered, but the description lacks information about return values (no output schema) and does not address potential errors or duplicates. Given the complexity and absence of annotations, more details would improve completeness.

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 schema has only 20% description coverage. The description adds meaningful context for the 'activate' parameter by explaining its condition and alternatives. But it does not elaborate on other parameters like 'name' or 'passphrase' beyond what the schema states.

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 specifies the verb 'Create' and the resource 'agent identity', detailing that it generates a Nostr keypair and Solana wallet and saves config. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'switch_agent' or 'list_agents' which serve different purposes.

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 explicit context for when to use the 'activate' parameter, including a prerequisite condition and a fallback suggestion. However, it does not compare this tool to any alternative methods for creating agents, which are absent among siblings.

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