user_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new user' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention authentication requirements, permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate emails, or what the response contains. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. It's appropriately sized for the tool's purpose with no wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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 user creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., does it return the user object? send a confirmation email?), what validation occurs, or error conditions. The mention of 'optional product access' is helpful but doesn't compensate for the broader context gaps.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optional product access' which corresponds to the 'products' parameter, but doesn't provide additional context about product IDs or how access is granted. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('Create a new user') and resource ('user'), and mentions optional product access which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like user_invite or user_update, which would require more precise language about when to use each.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like user_invite or user_update. It mentions 'optional product access' but doesn't explain when this feature is relevant or what prerequisites exist for user creation.

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