create_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it usefully discloses a uniqueness constraint on email/username and the resulting 409 conflict, plus that the created user is returned with an auto-generated id. It does not state required permissions/scopes, whether external_id is mandatory, or any side effects on groups/bindings.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, then requirements, then the uniqueness/return behavior. Very little waste, though the field-name mismatch costs a bit of precision.

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 nested-object create with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the return shape and one key failure mode but leaves authorization requirements, optionality of external_id, and the tenant/org scoping unaddressed. Adequate, not 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a genuine constraint (uniqueness + 409) not present in the schema, but its field naming ("user_name", "email") diverges from the schema's "username"/"email_address" and it omits external_id entirely, slightly muddying the mapping.

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 ("Create a new user") and immediately names the identifying fields. Despite many sibling tools, the intent is unambiguous and distinguishable from get_user/list_users/update_user.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling alternatives such as scim_create_user or create_binding_job, nor any precondition or context for choosing the direct API path over the SCIM path. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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