directus_create_user

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

No annotations provided, and description carries zero behavioral disclosure. Does not address idempotency, what happens if email exists, required permissions, or return values. For a mutation operation with 7 parameters, this is a critical gap.

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?

Extremely brief (one sentence), but '[UNIFIED]' prefix is structural clutter that aids nothing. Under-specified for the complexity—conciseness becomes inadequacy when critical context is missing.

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?

Incomplete for a 7-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no annotations. Lacks explanation of the Directus-specific user model, field validation rules, or side effects.

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 has 0% description coverage for 7 parameters, and the description compensates with zero additional context. No explanation of 'site' (implies multi-tenancy), 'role' requirements, or valid 'status' values.

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?

States the specific verb ('Create') and resource ('user'), but '[UNIFIED]' adds noise without clarifying scope. Fails to differentiate from sibling user-creation tools (appwrite_create_user, n8n_create_user, supabase_create_user) or distinguish from directus_invite_user.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like directus_invite_user. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., valid site/role requirements) or error conditions.

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