AgentBots: Create an Agent Bot

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

Annotations already declare the write/idempotency/safety profile, and the description usefully adds context beyond them: the required auth header, the exact HTTP route, and the fact that unlisted fields can be merged via extra_body. The note that text and digits are sent unchanged (Persian/Arabic-Indic) is a genuine behavioral detail not present in annotations or schema.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then endpoint, auth, body fields, and caveats in descending priority. The bracketed "[AgentBots]" tag and the trailing language note are slightly noisy but each line carries information.

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 creation tool with no output schema and annotations already covering safety, the description supplies auth, route, field list, an extensibility mechanism, and an encoding caveat. It omits what the response contains and whether any field is actually required (schema reports zero required), which is a minor but real gap.

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 adds meaning the schema does not: it names the body fields as the request body (name, description, outgoing_url), explains the extra_body merge escape hatch for unlisted keys, and documents the digit/language passthrough behavior that affects how parameter values are transmitted.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Create an agent bot") and pins it to an exact endpoint (POST /platform/api/v1/agent_bots), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling gapify_create_agent_bot, leaving the agent to guess which of the two create tools applies to its credential type.

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 and by the stated auth requirement ("Platform app API key"), which does tell the agent this is the platform-app route rather than the regular one. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing away from the sibling create_agent_bot tool.

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