create_auth_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'with the service key' indicating authentication requirements, and states it can create/update (upsert), set admin, and send trusted invites. However, it does not disclose behavioral details like whether email uniqueness is enforced, what happens on update (full replace? partial?), or if there are side effects (e.g., permissions changes). It is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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, well-structured sentence that covers the essential functionality: create/update, admin setting, and invite sending. Every phrase is meaningful and there is no extraneous information. It is concise and 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?

Given the tool's complexity (upsert, 6 params, optional invite), the description does not explain return values (e.g., created vs updated, success/error), nor does it clarify if email can be changed on update, or if there are any prerequisites. Without an output schema, more detail on expected outcomes would be beneficial. The description is somewhat incomplete.

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 description does not need to re-list parameters. It adds value by contextualizing is_admin as 'set project_admin status' and send_invite as 'send a trusted invite', and correctly notes that redirect_url is required when send_invite=true. This is helpful but does not significantly exceed baseline expectations for a well-documented 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?

The description clearly states 'Create or update a project auth user with the service key', specifying the action (create/update), resource (auth user), and context (service key). It also mentions the ability to set admin status and send invites, distinguishing it from sibling tools like invite_auth_user which likely only sends invites without creating/updating.

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 implies usage for creating or updating auth users and optionally sending invites, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like invite_auth_user or set_user_password. The guidance is implied rather than stated, so it's adequate but not explicit.

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