pm_create_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the admin-only restriction and lists input fields, but it does not reveal behavioral traits such as whether creation is idempotent, error handling for duplicates, or what the response contains. The output schema might cover return values, but the description lacks this context.

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 sentence with a clear listing of fields, making it efficient. It could be slightly improved by separating the field list into a bulleted format for readability, but it is not overly verbose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested payload object, 2 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the required and optional fields within payload but omits context for x_user_id and does not explain output behavior or error conditions. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

The schema has two parameters: payload (object with additionalProperties) and optional x_user_id. The description adds meaning by listing fields like display_name, email, etc. that should go into the payload, which is valuable since the schema is opaque. However, it does not describe x_user_id at all, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates partially but not fully.

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 'POST /users — admin only' along with the list of fields clearly indicates the tool creates a user. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which target different resources (comments, organizations, etc.), though it could be more explicit with a verb like 'Creates'.

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?

The description mentions 'admin only' which provides a clear access constraint, but it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pm_create_organization for user creation within an org). No explicit when-not or alternative tool guidance is given.

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