modx_create_user

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact — omitting 'password' triggers auto-generation — but says nothing about required permissions, default active state, whether the generated password is returned to the caller, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the non-obvious password behavior immediately after. Minor waste in the trailing ellipsis-style 'phone…' enumeration, which is both vague and out of sync with the actual parameter list.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, and the schema documents only one of five parameters. The most consequential gap is that an agent cannot tell what comes back after auto-generating a password — the single most important detail for a create-user call where the caller did not supply one.

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 only 20% (only 'active' is described), so the description must compensate. It does clarify the password parameter's two modes and groups email/fullname as profile fields, but 'username' requiredness is left to the schema and the mention of 'phone…' references a field that does not exist in the schema, which is a mild inaccuracy.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create a user'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like modx_create_user_group or modx_update_user. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the resource noun does the disambiguation work.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus modx_update_user or modx_create_user_group, and no prerequisites such as required permissions or whether the new user must subsequently be added to a group. The only conditional hint is the password-omission branch, which is a parameter behavior rather than usage guidance.

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