create_agent

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses default configurations (single_prompt, gpt-4.1, daniel voice, Pulse STT, returns agent ID) and explains that multi_agents requires allowlisting and playbooks must be added separately. It does not describe the agent's activation state, error conditions, or permission requirements, but overall provides good transparency about the creation process and defaults.

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 a single paragraph of five sentences, each providing essential information: main purpose, defaults, multi_agents option, post-creation steps, and return value. No extraneous content; every sentence earns its place. The structure is front-loaded with the core action.

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 the complexity (18 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers creation, defaults, agent type differentiation, post-creation steps, and return value. It also notes the domain-gating for multi_agents. It does not mention error scenarios or lifecycle hooks (e.g., if name already exists), but is fairly complete for typical use. The schema provides detailed parameter information, so the description complements well.

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 100%, so the description's role is supplementary. It adds context such as default values (e.g., model gpt-4.1, workflow_type single_prompt) that are already referenced in schema descriptions, and explains the workflow_type parameter's effect. However, it does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema for most parameters, and the mention of STT transcriber (not a parameter) could cause confusion. The description adds modest value.

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 'Create a new AI agent in your organization' and distinguishes from siblings like update_agent, duplicate_agent, delete_agent. It specifies the resource (agent) and action (create), and differentiates between single_prompt and multi_agents workflows, providing a clear and specific purpose.

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 explains when to use this tool (to create a new agent) and what to do after creation (setting prompt via update_agent, adding playbooks via add_playbooks, changing STT via update_agent). It mentions the domain-gating for multi_agents. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternative creation methods like duplicate_agent, and does not mention prerequisites or constraints such as agent name uniqueness.

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