create_agent

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

The description labels it as a mutation with '[mutation]' and warns about plan limits, but does not disclose what happens on success (e.g., return value), required permissions, or side effects. No annotations exist to supplement this, leaving significant gaps.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and includes a critical failure condition. It is concise and no unnecessary words.

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 mutation with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks details about return values, required permissions, or how to handle the described failure. The plan limit note is helpful but incomplete.

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?

All 8 parameters have descriptions in the input schema, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it creates a new customer service agent ('Crea un nuevo agente de atencion'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_agent and delete_agent. The verb and resource are specific.

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 mentions a potential failure due to plan limits, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_agent or save_agent_permissions. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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