memanto_create_agent

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key non-obvious side effect — that creating an agent provisions a dedicated Moorcheh namespace — which is real value beyond the schema. However, it says nothing about behavior when the agent_id already exists (error vs. idempotent), whether creation is reversible, or any permission/auth requirements for a mutating 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?

The single purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args block is compact and scannable. Wording is efficient, though the inline Args formatting is a stylistic choice that slightly bloats what could be schema documentation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and all three parameters receive some prose. Still, for a mutating, unannotated creation tool, the definition leaves out duplicate-id behavior, the meaning of the pattern enum, and any permission or irreversibility context an agent would want before calling it.

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 0%, so the description must supply the meaning, and it largely does: agent_id is documented as a unique kebab-case identifier with concrete examples, description as optional human-readable text, and pattern as one of support/project/tool with a stated default. The only gap is that the three pattern values themselves are never explained, so an agent cannot tell which pattern fits its use case.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Create a new agent") and adds the meaningful parenthetical that it "provisions a dedicated Moorcheh namespace". It does not differentiate itself from siblings like memanto_list_agents or memanto_get_agent, but the create action is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb "Create": an agent reading it can infer this is the tool for provisioning a new agent. There is no explicit guidance on when to create versus inspect existing agents first (e.g. via memanto_list_agents), and no noted prerequisites or side-effect warnings.

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