aras_create_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently explains that the tool creates a User, relies on Aras's auto-generated Identity alias, and writes Member rows for group membership. It also discloses a specific failure mode ('cannot be greater than 1') for creating a second alias, which is useful operational detail beyond the schema.

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 compact: three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by essential Aras-specific mechanics and a caveat. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 of creating an Aras user, the description covers the non-obvious three-step process and the critical alias limitation, which is enough for correct invocation. It does not mention duplicate-user behavior, required permissions, or return values, but these are not fatal given no output schema and otherwise clear guidance.

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 only 17%, with only 'gruppi' documented in the schema. The tool description adds meaning only for group membership, explaining that enrollment happens via Member rows, but it does not compensate for the low coverage of the other five parameters such as login, nome, cognome, email, and azienda.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Crea un utente e lo iscrive ai gruppi indicati.' This clearly identifies the tool as user creation plus group enrollment, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like aras_create_item, aras_create_group, or aras_manage_membership.

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 gives clear operational context by explaining Aras' three required steps (User, auto-generated Identity alias, Member rows) and warns that creating a second Alias fails. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exact when-not-to-use conditions, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to understand when this composite tool is appropriate.

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