create_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 side effects (creates a file under .rotifer/agents/ in the project) and a dependency on local genes. However, it omits overwrite/conflict behavior, permission or auth requirements, and failure modes for a mutation tool with 7 parameters.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by persistence location and the precondition. No filler, though the final sentence could be folded into the first for slightly tighter structure.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the primary mechanics and store location but leaves lifecycle questions unanswered: does creating an existing agent name overwrite or error, and what does a successful call return? Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters including enums and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a new Agent') plus the mechanism ('composing one or more local Genes') and the persistence target. It partially differentiates from siblings by naming wrap_gene as a prerequisite, though it does not explicitly contrast with list_local_agents or agent_run.

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 a clear precondition — 'Genes must exist locally' — and an actionable routing hint to use wrap_gene first. There is no explicit when-not guidance or mention of alternatives, but the prerequisite context is strong.

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