create_user

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the secret is redacted from the audit row and never returned (with rationale about verbatim result storage), a new user has no policy by default, and critically MinIO treats this as an upsert that REPLACES an existing secret with no undo for the old value. This goes well past destructiveHint=true/idempotentHint=false.

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?

Front-loaded with the [WRITE][risk=medium] tag and a one-line purpose, then scoped rationale and args. Mostly efficient, though the redaction rationale sentence ('the harness stores a result verbatim...') is slightly verbose for the point it makes.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 0% param coverage, the description covers operation type, upsert/no-undo semantics, secret handling, default-policy state, and every parameter. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the Args block fully compensates: it documents all four parameters including constraints the schema lacks (access_key 3-128 chars with allowed character class, secret_key 8+ chars, dry_run preview semantics, and target name/default behavior).

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create or reset an IAM user') and immediately flags it as a write operation with risk level. This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like remove_user, set_user_status, and attach_user_policy.

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?

Gives clear context: 'Reversible → remove' points at the undo/removal path, and the note that a new user 'can do nothing until one is attached' implies the follow-up with attach_user_policy. It does not name an explicit alternative or exclusion (e.g. 'to disable instead, use set_user_status'), so no full 5.

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