Create an agent

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

Annotations only give the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description earns credit by adding real behavioral context: secrets are returned masked, gitEnabled depends on an existing workspace git connection, avatarPath must resolve against the avatar catalog, and prompts are Markdown. It does not cover duplicate-name behavior, limits, or auth requirements beyond the credential scoping.

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 scope statement is front-loaded and the parameter notes are packed into a single dense sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the second sentence reads as a comma-spliced list that could be marginally tighter.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a 12-parameter creation tool with near-zero schema descriptions, the description leaves most optional fields (effort, model, sample prompts, response prompt, description) undefined. An agent could call it with only a name, but cannot confidently populate the rest.

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 description coverage is only 8% across 12 parameters, so the description must carry the burden but covers just four (systemPrompt, avatarPath, gitEnabled, llmKeyType) plus a note on secrets. Nothing is said about name, description, defaultEffort, samplePrompts, defaultModelId, responsePrompt, or the header parameter, all of which the schema leaves undocumented.

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 ("Create an agent") and scopes it to the workspace the credential resolves to, which separates it from generic create_* siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with update_agent or create_agent_session, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The clause about gitEnabled needing the workspace's git connection is a constraint rather than a usage rule, and no sibling (update_agent, list_agents, create_agent_session) is mentioned as an alternative.

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