Agents: Add a New Agent

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context: the auth requirement (User API key in the api-access-token header), the required body fields, and the extra_body escape hatch for unlisted keys. It omits failure modes such as duplicate-email handling, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then endpoint, auth, body fields, and the encoding note — each line carries distinct information with no filler. It is slightly list-like but every element earns its place.

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 7-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers auth, required vs optional fields, the extra_body mechanism, and encoding quirks, which is close to sufficient. Remaining gaps are behavioral edge cases (duplicate email, validation errors) rather than anything needed to construct a correct call.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description contributes beyond the schema by calling out which fields are required in prose, explaining extra_body's merge semantics for keys not listed in the schema, and noting that Persian/Arabic-Indic digits and non-Latin text are passed through unchanged. The digit/language note is genuinely information the schema does not carry.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a new agent to the account') and pins it to the underlying endpoint, so the agent knows exactly what is created. It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as gapify_create_agent_bot or gapify_platform_create_account_user, which a reader must infer from naming alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The closest thing to routing help is the [Agents] tag and endpoint path, which only weakly separates this from the agent-bot and account-user creation tools in the sibling list.

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