supabase_create_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the auto-confirmation behavior and metadata setting capabilities, but omits critical behavioral details like email sending logic, duplicate user handling, or webhook triggers.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences with the primary action front-loaded. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds slight noise but doesn't significantly impair readability.

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 the 7-parameter complexity and lack of annotations/output schema, the description covers the core functionality adequately but leaves important gaps regarding the 'site' parameter's purpose and the function's return value or error behaviors.

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%, requiring heavy description compensation. While it mentions email, password, confirmation, and metadata fields, it completely omits the 'site' parameter (critical for multi-tenant contexts) and 'phone' parameter, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 identifies the verb (Create), resource (user), and primary mechanism (email and password). It distinguishes from sibling user-creation tools by mentioning Supabase-specific features like 'auto-confirm email' and metadata fields.

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 hints at usage contexts through 'optionally auto-confirm email,' implying when to skip confirmation flows. However, it fails to explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'supabase_invite_user' or state prerequisites like authentication requirements.

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