yaaif_agent_spec_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the tool creates a resource and returns a spec_id to be used later, which is a meaningful behavioral cue. Yet it omits other relevant behavior such as idempotency, failure modes, or permission requirements, leaving the agent to infer the rest from the create verb. Some transparency is present, but it is not comprehensive.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, the Admin UI terminology note adds quick comprehension, and the spec_id follow-up is useful. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is efficient.

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 tool with a complex nested schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain what a Scenario/Agent Spec is, the meaning of segments/slots/requirements, the role of required fields like slug and name, or how the returned spec_id should be used in subsequent tools beyond a vague pointer. The description leaves critical operational and compositional details unaddressed.

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 does not compensate for it. The phrase 'requirement segments + architecture slots' only vaguely references the segments, requirements, and slots parameters, without clarifying the structure, required fields, relationships, or expected formats. The seven parameters, including nested objects like slots and segments, remain largely unexplained, so an agent would struggle to construct a correct payload.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Create' and the resource 'tenant Scenario (Agent Spec)', making the primary action unmistakable. It adds useful context by clarifying that the Admin UI calls this a scenario and by naming the main payload components (requirement segments, architecture slots). Among a large set of yaaif_agent_spec_* siblings (list, get, update, publish, etc.), this is clearly the creation tool.

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 implies usage when a new scenario needs to be created and provides a workflow hint ('Pass the returned spec_id on later create tools'). However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over similar tools like yaaif_agent_spec_update or yaaif_agent_spec_upsert_slots, nor does it mention exclusions such as existing specs. Adéquate but not explicit.

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