remnawave_users_create

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'mutation', which implies state change, but provides no details on what the mutation entails (e.g., required fields, side effects, idempotency). This is insufficient.

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 very brief (one sentence) but fails to provide useful information. It is under-specified rather than conciseness; it wastes the opportunity to add value.

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?

Given the tool has four parameters (including a flexible nested object), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain how to use the tool or what the result is.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not mention any of the four parameters (payload, confirmToken, responseMode, mutationApproved) or their semantics. The payload object with additionalProperties is left completely unexplained.

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 states 'Remnawave users.create (mutation)', which indicates it creates a user. This is clear but lacks any specifics about the resource or operation. Among siblings, it is the only create tool, so it distinguishes itself, but barely.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives, or any prerequisites or exclusions. There are many sibling tools but the description does not differentiate usage contexts.

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