create_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: generates keys, saves config to a specific path, and conditional activation. It does not mention potential side effects like overwriting existing config or idempotency, but the disclosed actions are sufficient 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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and then provides conditional details. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description covers the main outcomes and a key conditional behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly, though error handling and return values are not mentioned.

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 only 20% (only passphrase has a description). The description adds significant context for the 'activate' parameter, explaining the security condition. However, it does not elaborate on 'name', 'description', or 'network' beyond schema defaults, leaving some parameters underspecified.

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 states the tool creates a new agent identity, generating a Nostr keypair and Solana wallet, and saving config. It uses specific verbs ('Create', 'Generates', 'saves') and distinguishes from siblings like switch_agent or list_agents.

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 explains when to use activate=true vs false, including the prerequisite that the current agent must have security.agent_switch_enabled set to true for activation. It also provides a workaround if activation fails. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives for agent lifecycle management (e.g., using switch_agent to change active agent).

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