Create user

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (write, non-idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context by naming the required field and how email is routed through the _useremails array, but it omits what happens on duplicate logins, required permissions, and whether the password is stored hashed.

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?

Two compact sentences with the required field front-loaded and no filler. Every clause carries information, though the '_useremails array' phrasing is slightly cryptic without an example.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the mutation safety profile. For a create tool the entry covers the essential minimum (required field plus common fields), though it stops short of permissions, dedup behavior, and more complete field coverage.

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 input schema is a single free-form 'input' object with only the placeholder text 'User fields', so the schema itself conveys essentially nothing despite the nominal 100% coverage. The description compensates by naming the required field (name/login) and the common fields (realname, firstname, password, email via _useremails), which is meaningfully more than the schema provides.

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 ('Create') and resource ('GLPI user'), making the operation unambiguous and clearly distinct from the sibling write tool glpi_update_user or the readers glpi_get_user/glpi_list_users. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the name and phrasing leave 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 says nothing about when to use this tool versus the alternatives in the sibling set (e.g. glpi_update_user for existing users, glpi_search_user_by_email for dedup checks). No prerequisites, no conditions, no exclusions – the agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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