Create User

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant context: the server-side write gate TELGEA_ENABLE_WRITES=true and the boundary against plan provisioning. It stops short of saying what happens on a duplicate email or what identity is returned.

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 short sentences, each carrying a distinct and necessary fact: the action, the sibling boundary, and the write prerequisite. Zero filler and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 non-idempotent write tool with no output schema and only 17% parameter coverage, the description covers the gating and scoping questions well but leaves the parameter contract and post-call behavior (duplicate handling, returned user identity) unexplained. Adequate, with clear 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 only 17% — of six parameters only teamId carries any description. The description adds no meaning to email, firstName, lastName, costCode or employeeId, so the required-vs-optional semantics and the purpose of employeeId/costCode remain undocumented in both places.

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 and resource ('Create a user (employee) in the organisation'), and explicitly delimits scope by stating it does not order a plan, naming the sibling (telgea_prepare_change kind=create_user_plan) that does. An agent can distinguish it from telgea_create_team and telgea_update_user without opening any schema.

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 clearly routes the plan-ordering case to a named alternative and flags the server prerequisite TELGEA_ENABLE_WRITES=true, which tells the agent when the call is even possible. It does not explicitly state when to prefer telgea_update_user over creating a new user, so the guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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