agent_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool supports multi-step reasoning, web search, URL fetching, and custom tools, and notes the required model/preset. However, it does not mention side effects like cost, rate limits, authentication requirements, or the structure of the response. This is modest but insufficient behavioral detail for a create-style 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?

Three concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: the first states what the tool does, the second lists capabilities, the third clarifies a key parameter constraint. No fluff, no repetition of schema details.

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 11 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable high-level overview but lacks information about the response format, error behavior, or how the agent runs (e.g., synchronous vs async). The schema fills parameter details, but the absence of output schema means the description should have explained what the caller receives.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by stating the critical constraint that one of model, models, or preset must be provided, which is not encoded in the schema's required list (only 'input' is required). This helps the agent invoke the tool correctly despite the schema implying flexibility.

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 an agent response using the Perplexity Agent API, with a specific HTTPS endpoint (POST /v1/agent). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by highlighting multi-step agentic reasoning, web search, URL fetching, and custom function tools, which sets it apart from simple chat or search 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 implies when to use this tool: when multi-step reasoning or tool use is needed, as opposed to simpler chat/search tools. It also provides a clear usage requirement that either model, models, or preset must be provided. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool.

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