conduyt_create_user

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that a random password is generated and no invite email is sent, but leaves open how that password is delivered (returned in response? shown to caller?) and what permissions are required to create users — material for a write operation.

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 action and the differentiating side effect. Zero filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 user-creation mutation with no output schema, the description omits what the call returns — critically, whether the generated password is in the response. The no-email behavior is covered, but an agent still lacks enough to know the post-call state.

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%, with each of the six parameters documented including the role enum and the owner-only constraint. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

Specific verb + resource ('Create a new team member') with the key differentiator stated inline: no invite email is sent. It is unambiguously distinct from conduyt_invite_user, which it names.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to conduyt_invite_user for email-based onboarding, giving a clear alternative and selection condition. It stops short of stating prerequisites or permission requirements for direct creation (e.g. who may create admins).

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