manage_agent

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only lists parameter requirements. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., create mutates data), required permissions, error behavior, or whether update replaces or merges fields. This leaves the agent without critical operational context.

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 compact and uses a clean Args block that is easy to scan. It avoids redundant restatement of the schema and each line contributes meaningful action-parameter mappings. The opening phrase 'Unified agent operations' is terse but acceptable.

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's complexity—a 22-parameter, multi-action dispatcher—the description is incomplete. It does not enumerate the full set of fields applicable to create/update, nor does it explain the get_fields action or how the output is structured. Despite an output schema, the decision space remains large and under-documented.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning by linking parameters to actions: first_name is MANDATORY for create, agent_id is required for get/update, query is the filter string, and page/per_page handles list pagination. However, the remaining 15+ parameters (e.g., occasional, background_information, department_ids) lack any semantic explanation, so the description only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 this is a 'Unified agent operations' tool and enumerates concrete actions (create, update, get, list, filter, get_fields), which makes the core purpose evident. It distinguishes the resource as 'agent' from sibling tools like manage_agent_group, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with other manage_* tools.

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 gives no direct guidance on when to use manage_agent versus the many sibling manage_* tools, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives. While the action list implies different use cases, there is no explicit context such as 'use get_fields to discover available fields' or 'use manage_agent_group for group-level operations'.

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