create_user

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, so agents know this is a state-changing call. The description adds one useful detail beyond the annotations: the write-permission requirement. However, it discloses nothing about side effects, such as whether an invitation email is sent, whether username must be unique, or what happens on duplicate creation.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words: the core action leads, and the permission requirement is tucked into a short parenthetical. It reads as concise rather than bloated, though it is so minimal it borders on under-specification, which is better penalized under contextual completeness.

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 mutation tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, this description is thin. It covers the permission prerequisite but omits context an agent needs when calling it: what a successful creation returns, whether api_only changes the password requirement, and whether roles must reference existing role IDs. The annotations cover the safety profile, but the description carries too little of the behavioral load.

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 the baseline of 3 applies - all 11 parameters, including defaults for api_only and two_fa_enabled, are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level insight beyond the schema, such as how roles map to get_roles or how password interacts with api_only.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Create a user in LogicMonitor'. The action is unambiguous and the verb inherently distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user, update_user, and delete_user, though it never explicitly calls those alternatives out.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you need a new user in LogicMonitor. The write-permission parenthetical hints at a prerequisite for calling it, but the description does not state when this is preferred over alternatives like update_user, nor any exclusions or preconditions such as roles needing to exist first.

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