Create user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether duplicate emails are rejected, whether the call is idempotent, whether an invitation/email is sent, or what permissions are needed for a tenant-wide write.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and its purpose lead the sentence. It is efficient, though efficiency here partly reflects under-specification rather than tight writing.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with 20% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits duplicate-handling behavior, permission requirements, and what the caller receives back (e.g., a user id needed for later assignment calls). Only the bare purpose is conveyed.

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 only 20% – just 'email' is documented, while first_name, last_name, middle_name and phone_number carry no schema descriptions. The description does not compensate at all: it never mentions required identity fields, format expectations, or whether middle_name/phone_number are optional.

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 a specific verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('a Miradore user') with an added rationale ('that devices can be assigned to'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_user, list_users and assign_device_identifiers_to_user. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 guidance on when to call this versus update_user (i.e., whether the user already exists), no prerequisites, and no mention of what happens if the email is already registered. The agent must infer the entire create-vs-update decision.

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