n8n: Create user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and notably destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond the annotations — it does not explain why a create is flagged destructive, whether an invite email is dispatched, whether re-running with the same email errors or duplicates (non-idempotent), or what permissions are required.

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 single sentence is front-loaded but underspecified rather than concise; the '[UNIFIED]' token spends characters without adding meaning. It is too short for a mutating, three-parameter tool with no schema documentation.

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 a non-idempotent, destructive-flagged creation tool with an undocumented 'site' parameter and no output schema, the definition leaves out nearly everything an agent needs: target system/scope, invite behavior, permission requirements, and failure modes.

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% across all three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and supplies none of it. 'site' is entirely unexplained (instance URL? tenant slug?), 'email' is implied only by the word 'invite', and the role parameter with its 'global:member' default is never mentioned.

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 verb+resource ('Invite/create a new user') is identifiable, but the dual verb leaves it ambiguous whether this sends an invitation or immediately provisions an account — a meaningful distinction given siblings like supabase_invite_user. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix communicates nothing to an agent and does not help distinguish this from the many other create_* siblings.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance at all. Nothing tells the agent how this differs from supabase_create_user, supabase_invite_user, or n8n_add_project_users, nor what prerequisites (admin rights, existing site) are needed.

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