create_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool creates a persistent agent identity, returns an id, affects the review UI, and enables downstream attribution and approval rules. It does not mention idempotency, duplicate names, or permission requirements, but it covers the main behavioral consequences of the call.

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 focused sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and the return-value usage, while the second efficiently covers parameter semantics. It is slightly dense but every clause 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?

Given no output schema, the description supplies the essential return-value behavior (returned id for log_session) and parameter meaning. It is complete enough for a simple 3-parameter create tool, though it does not discuss error cases, uniqueness, or authorization, which are not critical for basic invocation.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains that `name` is how the agent appears in the review UI and that `description` and `system_prompt` are optional reviewer context. All three parameters receive meaningful semantics beyond the raw 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Register an agent identity with the team,' and explains the downstream purposes (logged session attribution and admin auto-approve targeting). It is clearly distinguished from sibling list/retrieve tools by its create/register action, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings.

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 gives clear context for when to call the tool: 'so logged sessions can be attributed to it' and 'so an admin can target it with an auto-approve rule.' It even instructs passing the returned id to log_session. However, it does not state explicit when-not-to-use conditions or name alternatives.

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