add_server_user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that: no mention of required permissions, idempotency, what happens on duplicate usernames, or any side effects.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the verb and both variants front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though there is very little content to begin with.

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. However, for a six-parameter mutation tool with low schema coverage, the description leaves the required parameters and the semantics of the two service modes under-specified.

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 coverage is only 33%, so the description needs to compensate, and it partially does: the FTP-vs-email branching explains why 'permissions' matters only for FTP and why 'domain' matters only for email, which the raw schema does not express. It still leaves 'device', 'username', and 'password' entirely unexplained.

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 ('Add') and two concrete resources ('FTP account', 'email account') plus the target ('to a server'). It is immediately clear what the tool does, though it gives no hint of how it differs from nearby tools like set_server_service or configure_email.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The agent must infer from the sibling list alone whether add_server_user or set_server_service is appropriate.

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