add_sub_agent

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

There are no annotations, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states the basic action without disclosing side effects, overwrite behavior, idempotency, or any permission/configuration requirements. This is insufficient 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 description is a single sentence and front-loaded, containing no fluff. It is appropriately concise for the simple action, though it sacrifices depth for brevity.

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 nested object parameter, lack of annotations, and no output schema, this sparse description leaves significant unknowns. There is no mention of how the sub-agent integrates with existing configuration, error conditions, or relationship to sibling tools like 'initialize_project_configuration'.

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?

With schema description coverage at 50%, the description should compensate, but it adds no meaningful parameter detail. The reference to 'guardian' is slightly misleading given the schema's flexible 'agentType'. The nested 'subAgent' object's properties are documented in the schema, but the tool description provides no additional context.

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 action ('Add'), the resource ('sub-agent'), and the context ('project configuration'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'update_sub_agent' by using 'add' vs 'update'. However, the parenthetical '(guardian)' incorrectly narrows the scope since the schema allows various agent types.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_sub_agent' or 'add_mcp_tool'. It also fails to mention prerequisites such as project configuration initialization or that a project ID must exist.

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