create_auth_user

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It discloses that the tool can create/update and optionally send an invite, but does not describe authorization details beyond 'service key', potential destructive effects (e.g., overwriting existing users), or side effects of the invite. Rate limits and idempotency are also not addressed.

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 sentence of 16 words, which is concise and front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating create/update and invite functionalities) without adding length.

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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core actions but misses critical details: the dependency of 'redirect_url' on 'send_invite' (though present in schema), the nature of 'client_state', and the distinction between creating and updating. The sibling overlap also reduces completeness.

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 summarizes the tool's capabilities but does not add meaning for individual parameters like 'client_state' or 'redirect_url'. It reiterates 'send_invite' and 'is_admin' but without additional context beyond the schema.

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?

Description states 'Create or update a project auth user', clearly indicating the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'invite_auth_user', which likely overlaps in functionality (sending invites). This lack of distinction prevents a perfect score.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'invite_auth_user'. The description mentions 'with the service key' but does not explicitly state prerequisites or context for choosing this tool over others. No exclusions or when-not-to-use information is provided.

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