create_metabase_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'creates' a user without disclosing behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it sends email notifications, rate limits, or error conditions. It mentions the return type but doesn't explain what 'Created user metadata' includes or potential 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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections, making it easy to parse. It's appropriately sized, though the parameter explanations could be more detailed without sacrificing conciseness.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, mutation operation) and no annotations, the description is moderately complete but has gaps: it doesn't cover error handling, authentication needs, or how it differs from sibling tools. The output schema exists, so describing return values isn't necessary, but more behavioral context would improve completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate—it does by listing all 7 parameters with types and brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the schema's titles. However, it lacks details on format constraints (e.g., email validation, password complexity) or examples for optional parameters like 'login_attributes'.

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 'Create a new user in Metabase' with specific verb ('Create') and resource ('user'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'update_metabase_user' or 'delete_metabase_user'. It precisely defines what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_metabase_user' or 'get_metabase_users' is provided. The description lacks context about prerequisites, permissions needed, or typical use cases, offering only basic functional information.

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