plan_create_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Plan creating,' which hints at a planning rather than execution role, but it does not explain what 'plan' means, whether it mutates state, requires authentication, or returns a preview. The description is too sparse to convey the tool's behavioral contract.

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 one efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource and adds a helpful model reference. It is concise but somewhat under-specified, warranting a 4 rather than a 5.

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 absence of annotations and sparse description, the tool is not fully contextualized. The output schema exists, which reduces the need to explain return values, but an agent still lacks guidance on when to use planning versus execution, what preconditions exist, and how the 'panel' parameter is resolved. The description is too brief for a complete understanding.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds useful context that the 'user' parameter follows the panel's UserCreate model, which helps an agent understand the expected object shape. However, the 'panel' parameter is only implicitly referenced as 'the panel's' and not explicitly described, leaving part of the parameter semantics unaddressed.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Plan creating a PasarGuard user.' The reference to the panel's UserCreate model adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'plan_update_user' tool, though 'creating' implies a create operation.

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 is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives like plan_update_user, apply_change, or plan_delete_resource. The description only says what the tool does, not when it should be selected, making it undirected for an agent.

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