Create chat or workflow agent definitions by specifying name, description, and goal prompt to automate task execution.
Create a chat or workflow agent definition.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| enabled | No | ||
| spec_id | No | ||
| slot_key | No | ||
| skill_ids | No | ||
| agent_type | No | ||
| description | Yes | ||
| goal_prompt | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.5Does 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 says 'Create', implying mutation, but does not explain side effects, required permissions, validation behavior, or the distinction between chat agents and workflow agents. This is a significant gap for a create operation.
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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded, but the brevity is not appropriate for a tool with 8 parameters and no other structured documentation. It is a minimum-viable statement but lacks the substance expected given the tool's complexity.
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 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain required inputs, behavioral effects, return values, or how chat and workflow definitions differ. An agent would have no way to construct a valid call without opening the schema.
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% and the description gives zero parameter guidance. It vaguely hints at a chat vs workflow distinction (possibly 'agent_type') but does not explain any of the 8 parameters, including required fields like name, description, or goal_prompt. The agent must open the schema to understand what to provide.
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 action ('Create') and the resource ('a chat or workflow agent definition'). It distinguishes itself from list/get/update siblings through the 'definition' framing, though it does not explicitly clarify how this differs from ambient_agent_create. The verb-resource pair is specific enough for basic selection.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like yaaif_agent_update or yaaif_ambient_agent_create. The description does not mention prerequisites, suitability conditions, or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.