supabase_auth_create_user

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic creation operation. It does not mention confirmation emails, required permissions, or state changes, relying entirely on the annotations which indicate destructiveHint=true. With annotations present, the low bar is not met because no additional behavioral insight is provided.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It effectively communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and complex auth behavior, the description is too minimal. It lacks information about return values, confirmation flows, or error conditions, making it insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully describes each parameter. The description adds a slight semantic clue by indicating the email/password or phone combination, but it doesn't clarify required combinations or edge cases.

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 a specific action (create) and resource (a user), and specifies the authentication methods supported (email/password or phone). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like supabase_auth_update_user and supabase_auth_delete_user.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as supabase_insert or supabase_rpc. The auth namespace and parameter schema imply its purpose, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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