admin_create_portal_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses the anonymous email behavior when contact_id is missing, but omits other important details such as required permissions, duplicate handling, or what the tool returns.

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 concise with two sentences. The first states the purpose, the second provides critical guidance. No extraneous information.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should mention what the tool returns (e.g., the created user object or ID). It also lacks context about prerequisites, constraints, or error scenarios, making it incomplete for a creation tool.

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 fully describes all 6 parameters, and the description adds value by explaining the effect of providing contact_id (associates a name) and the consequence of omitting it (anonymous email). This helps beyond the schema alone.

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 clearly states 'Create a customer portal user', which is specific and uses a verb+resource structure. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'admin_create_portal_invitation' which might create invitations rather than users.

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 provides a strong recommendation to always include contact_id, explaining the consequence of omitting it. But it lacks guidance on when to choose this tool over the similar sibling 'admin_create_portal_invitation' or 'admin_update_portal_user'.

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