Create an ambient agent configuration linked to a workflow agent to enable automated background actions.
Create an ambient agent config linked to a workflow agent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| policy | No | ||
| enabled | No | ||
| spec_id | No | ||
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| slot_key | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| requires_approval | No | ||
| workflow_async_enabled | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the creation action and the relationship, but does not mention side effects, permission requirements, whether the operation is reversible, or any implications of creating an ambient agent config. For a create operation with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 concise sentence without fluff, but given the complexity of the tool (10 params, nested objects), it is under-specified. It is efficiently structured but does not earn its place by providing sufficient context for correct invocation.
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?
The description is completely inadequate for a tool with 10 parameters, a nested policy object, and no output schema. It does not explain what an ambient agent config is, how parameters relate, or what the expected behavior is. An agent cannot confidently use this tool based on the description alone.
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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no meaning to any of the 10 parameters. It does not explain what 'mode', 'policy', 'slot_key', or 'requires_approval' mean, nor does it clarify that 'agent_id' is the workflow agent link. With zero coverage and no compensation, this is a critical deficiency.
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 ('ambient agent config') with the relationship 'linked to a workflow agent.' This distinguishes it from siblings like agent_create or ambient_workflow_create, which target different resources.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ambient_workflow_create or agent_create. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, required setup, or conditions that would select this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.