create_business_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the created agent is a draft and that publication is a separate action, but it does not mention permissions, idempotency, failure behavior, or what the call returns.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: required fields, optional attachments, and the follow-up publish step are all in the first sentence, with the routing to the sibling in the second.

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 10-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core lifecycle but does not mention return behavior or several optional fields (tools, description, conversation_starters, ad_account_id, privacy_policy_url). It is adequate for invocation but not complete.

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 90%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds value by highlighting the two required parameters (name, instructions) and grouping the three common attachable resources (product feeds, connectors, lead form), making parameter selection quicker. It omits some optional params like conversation_starters, but the schema covers them.

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?

Description opens with 'Create a draft Business Agent,' giving a specific action and resource, and the word 'draft' immediately separates it from publish_business_agent and update_business_agent. The close 'Publish separately via publish_business_agent' reinforces the distinct lifecycle stage.

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?

It states the intended workflow: create the draft here, then publish through publish_business_agent. This directly orients the agent to the correct sibling for the next step and implies this tool is not for publishing.

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