parse_create_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the required and optional fields and states that a sessionToken is returned for authentication. It does not mention error conditions (e.g., duplicate username), permission requirements, or side effects. This is partial disclosure but lacks depth 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 concise sentence in Spanish that efficiently states the action, requirements, and return value. It avoids unnecessary detail and is well-structured.

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?

The description covers the essential action, required/optional parameters, and return value. However, without an output schema or annotations, it omits details about error handling, permissions, or duplicate user behavior. For a simple create-user tool, it's adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage for the top-level parameter inputSchema, and the description compensates by listing the required (username, password) and optional (email, additionalFields) fields. However, it does not clarify that these fields are nested inside the inputSchema object, which could lead to invocation errors. It adds some semantic meaning but not fully.

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 'Crea un nuevo usuario en Parse Server' (Creates a new user in Parse Server), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like parse_create_object by targeting users specifically. The mention of required username/password and returned sessionToken further clarifies its purpose.

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 clear context for when to use (creating a user with mandatory fields) and mentions the return of sessionToken for authentication. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., parse_create_object) or state when not to use it. The requirements (username/password) are clear, but no exclusions are given.

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