create_agent

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

The description adds useful context about the post-creation workflow (attach_tool, attach_memory_block, prompt_agent), which goes beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this operation is idempotent, what permissions are required, or how errors are handled. With annotations limited to just a title, the description carries more burden but provides only moderate behavioral insight.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: the first states the core function, and the second provides essential workflow guidance. There's zero wasted language, and the information is front-loaded with the primary action stated immediately.

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 that this is a creation tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description provides good contextual completeness. It covers the purpose, distinguishes from siblings, and provides workflow guidance. The main gap is lack of behavioral details about the creation operation itself, but the existence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation.

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?

The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It mentions 'specified configuration' but doesn't elaborate on what parameters are available or their meanings. Since schema coverage is complete, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to given the comprehensive schema.

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 specific action ('Create a new Letta agent') and resource ('with specified configuration'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like clone_agent, modify_agent, or import_agent. It explicitly defines the tool's function as initial agent creation rather than modification or duplication.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives by stating 'After creation, use attach_tool to add capabilities, attach_memory_block to configure memory, or prompt_agent to start conversations.' This clearly delineates the tool's role in the workflow and directs users to specific sibling tools for subsequent actions.

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