add_user_api_v1_auths_add_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention that this is a mutation operation, potential side effects (e.g., sending verification email), required permissions, or what happens on success/failure. The single phrase 'Add User' is insufficient.

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 extremely short (two words), which may appear concise but actually represents underspecification. It lacks any structure or additional detail that would help the agent use the tool effectively. True conciseness would pack meaningful information into a brief form.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not mention return values or side effects. Given the tool's complexity (creating a user with multiple fields) and the presence of sibling tools, the description is far from complete. It fails to cover essential context like authentication requirements or data validation.

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%, and the description adds no information about the parameters. The five parameters (email, name, password, profile_image_url, role) are undocumented beyond their names and types in the schema. The agent receives no help understanding their purpose, constraints, or interrelations.

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 'Add User' clearly states the verb and resource, indicating a user creation operation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'signup_api_v1_auths_signup_post' or 'update_profile_api_v1_auths_update_profile_post', leaving ambiguity about the specific context (e.g., admin vs self-registration).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'signup' or 'update_user'. The description does not specify prerequisites, intended user roles, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate, leaving the agent without decision support.

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