Create a user

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

Annotations only declare the generic read/write profile; the description adds the parts that matter here: admin-only authorization, the non-obvious fact that no forge entity or access is created, and the confirmation flow triggered by admin=true. It also warns that a login mismatch silently creates a second unused account, a real side effect not carried by the annotations.

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?

Front-loads purpose and scope before the forge/Woodpecker clarification, which is the key disambiguation. It is a touch repetitive — the forge exclusion is restated twice in one sentence — but every clause carries distinct operational meaning.

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 an output schema present and rich parameter descriptions, the description needs only to supply authorization, side-effect and confirmation context, and it does all three. Nothing an agent requires to decide whether and how to call this tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so login, email, admin and confirm_token are already documented in the schema, including the admin escalation and login-exactness warnings. The description reinforces the admin confirmation behaviour but adds no syntax, ordering or default information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Registers an account ahead of its first login") and immediately bounds the scope by saying it creates nothing in the forge. An agent can distinguish this from create_forge or list_users without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition ("ahead of its first login", "how you make someone an admin before they first log in") and an access precondition ("Admin only"). It does not name a sibling alternative for the case where a forge account already exists, so it falls short of explicit when-not guidance.

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