aircall_create_user

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds a valuable behavioral detail: an invitation email will be sent, which is a side effect not captured by annotations. However, it does not disclose permission requirements or failure behaviors.

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?

Two short sentences: the first states the action, the second discloses the side effect. No filler or redundant information.

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 sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and a key side effect. With a rich schema and annotations providing the safety profile, the absence of return-value documentation is acceptable, though it doesn't explain what happens on error or what the API returns.

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 schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters (email, role_id, is_admin, first_name, last_name) with simple, self-explanatory descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the specific verb 'Create' and identifies the resource 'a new user in Aircall', clearly differentiating from sibling tools that create other entities (campaigns, contacts, teams). The additional detail about the invitation email reinforces the purpose.

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 implies usage when a new user needs to be added to Aircall, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like aircall_update_user or aircall_add_user_to_team. No exclusions or alternative references are mentioned.

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