Создание AI-агента

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, confirming a write operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious act of creation—no mention of side effects, required permissions, return values, or impact on existing resources. It fails to disclose any traits not already captured by annotations.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. It efficiently combines the primary action, required fields, and prerequisite lookups in a compact structure.

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 create tool with 13 parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential invocation context: required fields and how to obtain prerequisite IDs. It does not mention what the tool returns or optional parameter behavior, but the schema covers parameter details. Given the complexity, the description is adequate for a knowledgeable agent, though not exhaustive.

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 100% with each parameter individually described, including hints to list_ai_models and list_ai_agent_token_packages. The description reiterates the required fields but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The prerequisite guidance is already embedded in the schema descriptions, so the description adds no incremental value for parameter understanding.

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 'Создаёт нового AI-агента' (Creates a new AI agent), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like update_ai_agent, delete_ai_agent, list_ai_agents, and get_ai_agent by clarifying it creates a new entity.

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 procedural guidance: 'Перед вызовом получи model_id через list_ai_models и token_package_id через list_ai_agent_token_packages' (Before calling, get model_id via list_ai_models and token_package_id via list_ai_agent_token_packages). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_ai_agent), making usage context implied rather than explicit.

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