accelo_create_staff

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and rises to it: it discloses that this is an administrative write, that it provisions an account and consumes a licence seat, that user confirmation is expected, and that the password is a secret not to be logged. It does not cover failure modes (e.g. duplicate username) or the return shape, but the safety/impact disclosure is genuinely valuable.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by the high-priority safety warning, then a structured Args block. The parameter listing is somewhat long but each line earns its place given 0% schema coverage; little waste remains.

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 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, impact, secrets handling, and every parameter. Return behavior is only hinted at via the 'fields' arg, so it is not fully exhaustive, but it is complete enough to call 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 0%, so the schema provides only titles, yet the description documents all 11 parameters in order, marking the 5 required ones and flagging password as secret. The glosses are brief (phone/mobile/fax get no format detail) but they fully compensate for the documentation gap.

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 ('Create a new staff member (user) on the Accelo deployment'), immediately distinguishing it from the read-only siblings like accelo_list_staff, accelo_get_staff, and accelo_count_staff, and from accelo_update_staff which edits existing records.

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?

It supplies useful operating context ('Confirm with the user before calling', the licence-seat cost of provisioning), but never names when this should be chosen over accelo_update_staff or otherwise routes between alternatives. The guidance is contextual rather than comparative.

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