register_user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds only 'Changes state on Growatt's side.' This gives minor external-context but no additional detail about side effects, permissions, or irreversibility beyond what annotations already imply.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded ('Create an end-user account') followed by a brief state-change note. Zero filler, no redundancy with the schema.

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 full schema descriptions, an output schema, and annotations, the mechanical details are covered. However, the description omits any contextual guidance such as checking for existing users or potential failure modes, making it adequate but not comprehensive for a mutation tool.

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% and every parameter has its own description in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies without further compensation.

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 action ('Create an end-user account') with a clear resource and scope ('under this Growatt account'), and the naming distinguishes it from siblings like modify_user, check_user, and list_users. The verb and resource are explicit and unambiguous.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_user or modify_user. No mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria; the description simply states the action without any routing context.

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