retell_create_chat_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions a prerequisite, not the mutation side effects, permissions, response format, or error behavior. For a create operation, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name and parameter requirement.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a key requirement. No filler or repetition of schema descriptions. Every word 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?

For a create tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it states the purpose and the critical requirement. It could mention the return value or error conditions, but given the simplicity and good schema coverage, it meets most needs. It is not as rich as the TDQS 4.3 example, but above the mid-range.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping llm_id, llm_websocket_url, and conversation_flow_id as alternative response_engine options and indicating that one is required, even though the schema marks all parameters optional. This clarifies mutual exclusivity and a validation rule not present in the 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 verb (create), resource (chat agent), and disambiguates from voice agents with 'text/messaging'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like retell_create_agent by specifying the chat domain. The additional mention of the response_engine requirement further clarifies the 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 specifies the context (text/messaging) and a key prerequisite (requires response_engine). It implicitly tells the agent when to use this tool over retell_create_agent (for voice) or retell_create_chat (for sessions). However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5.

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