Create a user

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

Annotations supply readOnly=false, idempotent=false, and destructive=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond these: it requires admin privileges, cannot create admins via the API, triggers a human confirmation step, and warns that passwords may remain in the transcript. This is exactly the kind of hidden behavior an agent needs.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then covers preconditions, post-creation access, admin limitations, confirmation behavior, and a privacy warning. Every sentence contributes necessary information without padding.

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 output schema exists and the annotations cover safety hints, the description is complete. It covers authentication requirements, what to do after creation, how to create admins, the confirmation protocol, and a privacy concern. No critical operational context is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value for confirm_token by explaining the two-call flow, and for password by warning about transcript exposure. It does not add much for username or tier, but the schema already documents those well.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a non-admin account on a self-hosted instance.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like delete_user, list_users, and manage_user_access by specifying scope (non-admin) and context (self-hosted).

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 gives explicit usage context: it requires an admin account, explains that new accounts need manage_user_access to reach topics, and notes that admin creation must go through the ntfy CLI instead. It also explains the confirmation flow with a token, so an agent knows when to call once vs. twice.

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