combell_mysql_users_create

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), the description adds that the operation 'Runs in the background (202 Accepted)', informing the agent that it is asynchronous and will not return the created resource directly. It also discloses that new users get 'read_only rights', which is a behavioral trait not captured in annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by two key behavioral details (read_only rights and async execution). Every word adds value, and it is immediately scannable.

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 simple create operation, the description covers the essential behavioral context: async execution with 202 Accepted, and the read_only rights assignment. It does not describe the response format or mention any prerequisites like an existing database, but the schema covers required parameters and the output is not specified. Given the simplicity and annotations, it is largely complete.

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 67% (two of three parameters have descriptions). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for the parameters, but the covered parameters (name and password) have clear constraints. The database_name parameter lacks a description, and the tool description does not compensate for that gap. Since coverage is moderate, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Add a user to a MySQL database' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list/delete/set by indicating creation, and the mention of 'read_only rights' adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other create tools like combell_mysql_databases_create, but the resource is clearly different.

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 such as combell_mysql_users_list or combell_mysql_users_set_status. It only implies usage through the action, but does not state prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. The async note is behavioral, not usage guidance.

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