create_agent

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

Annotations already signal that this is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false), so the mutation nature is covered. The description adds one behavioral detail beyond annotations: it returns the created agent object with its UUID. However, it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, failure modes, or idempotency expectations beyond what annotations imply.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with zero redundant wording. It states the action first and the return contract second, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the rich schema descriptions and the annotation set, the description provides the essential missing piece: the return contract (created agent with UUID). It does not explicitly cover when to prefer this over cloning or publishing, and there is no output schema, but the tool is a straightforward create operation and the current description plus schema is largely sufficient for invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, including examples for llm_config and model patterns, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level information, but the schema already carries the full semantic burden for all 8 parameters.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Cria um novo agente' (creates a new agent). It also adds the return value behavior ('Retorna o agente criado com seu UUID'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_agent, delete_agent, and list_agents. The action is unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as clone_agent, publish_agent, or update_agent. There are no stated conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only usage signal is the tool name itself, which is implicit rather than explicit.

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