Create reseller user

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds non-obvious behavior: the password is sent to MXroute and never returned, plus the 403 refusal and config-based availability constraint. It leaves permission/ownership nuances unstated, so not a full 5.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: purpose first, then the password behavior, then the eligibility constraints. No filler, nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains the meaningful result characteristic (password never shown). Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 100%, so all four parameters (email, package, password, username) are already documented with patterns and lengths. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond referencing an existing package, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Creates') and resource ('new user account under the reseller'), and pins the scope to reseller accounts with a required existing package. This clearly separates it from create_email_account and create_package-style siblings.

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?

Explicit when-not guidance: regular accounts are refused (403) and the tool is unavailable while MXROUTE_USERNAME is in `reseller|user` form. Also points to list_packages for the required package, giving the agent both preconditions and a routing hint.

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