users_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful context: confirm is required, notify emails the welcome message, and password is meant to be temporary. However, it does not disclose permissions, failure behavior, idempotency, or side effects beyond the creation itself.

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 purpose sentence followed by a compact argument list with zero filler. Each line provides a distinct semantic for one parameter, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description covers parameter semantics thoroughly and adds legacy API context. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed. It is slightly incomplete on preconditions like package existence and required admin permissions, but it is largely sufficient.

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 0%, but the Args list fully compensates. Every parameter has meaningful semantic detail, including username length/alphanumeric constraints, IP allowed values, package being an existing package name, and confirm being required. It even highlights that confirm is required despite the schema omitting it from the required list.

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 action and resource: 'Create a user from a package' and identifies the legacy API as CMD_API_ACCOUNT_USER. It is clear enough to distinguish from reseller/admin creation, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are mentioned. The phrase 'from a package' implies the intended scenario, but the description does not explain when an agent should prefer this over related tools like resellers_create or packages_user_new_api.

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