create_auth_user

Does 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 effectively communicates critical behavioral traits: this is a write operation (implied by 'Creates'), it requires a plain password (security risk), and it operates directly on auth.users. The warning about insecurity and extreme caution adds valuable context beyond basic functionality, though it could mention permissions or side effects.

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 perfectly concise with only two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the purpose, and the second provides critical warnings. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no words, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 complexity (a write operation with security implications), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by covering the purpose and major risks. However, it lacks details on what the tool returns (e.g., user ID or confirmation) and doesn't mention prerequisites like admin permissions, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the semantics of 'app_metadata' vs 'user_metadata'). This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Creates a new user') and target resource ('directly in auth.users'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'update_auth_user' or 'delete_auth_user' which modify or remove users rather than create them. It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Creates a new user') and includes a strong warning about security risks ('WARNING: Requires plain password, insecure. Use with extreme caution.'), which implicitly suggests caution and potential alternatives. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative methods or specify when not to use it beyond the security warning.

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