Create Reseller User

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing the auth context requirement and the 422-exists error semantics, both non-obvious. It does not address duplicate-username behavior or what happens to the created user's initial state, which matters given idempotentHint=false and an output schema it never contextualizes.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying a distinct load: what is created, the auth constraint, and the prerequisite/error. The critical call-condition constraint is front-loaded in the second sentence where it will be read before invocation.

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 four-required-parameter mutation with full annotations, a 100%-covered schema, and an existing output schema, the description covers the gap-prone parts: auth mode, prerequisite, and error interpretation. The only shortfall is leaving duplicate-username/collision behavior unstated for a non-idempotent create.

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 formats, lengths, and patterns for all four parameters are already documented in the schema, making the baseline 3. The description restates the same four field names without adding syntax or validation detail, and its "package must already exist (see list_packages)" note duplicates what the package property description already says.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Creates a user under the reseller account") and enumerates the identifying fields (username, contact email, password, package), so an agent knows exactly what is produced. It implicitly separates itself from create_email_account by scoping the operation to the reseller account, though it never names the sibling create tools it could be confused with.

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?

It states the precise call condition (authenticate as the reseller with the plain reseller username) and an explicit when-not (not while impersonating a user), which is the main failure mode for this API surface. It also gives a prerequisite and points to list_packages for satisfying it, plus the 422 signal when the package is missing.

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