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 plain text passwords (security risk), and it operates directly on the auth.users system. The warning about insecurity adds important context beyond what the input schema provides.

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 sized at two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second provides crucial warnings. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core functionality followed by important caveats.

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 write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by clearly stating it's a creation tool and providing critical security warnings. However, it doesn't mention what happens on success/failure, whether the operation is idempotent, or what permissions are required. Given the complexity of user creation and lack of output schema, some additional behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 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 descriptions. However, it does reinforce the password security warning mentioned in the schema, providing marginal additional context.

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 'get_auth_user'. It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('Creates a new user') and includes a strong warning about security implications ('WARNING: Requires plain password, insecure. Use with extreme caution.'). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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