create_organization_user

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

Adds context beyond the annotations: the tool requires the caller's OAuth token, and it explicitly is not an invitation flow (a genuine semantic distinction given invite_workspace_member exists). It stops short of disclosing what happens when the email already exists or when the role name is invalid, which for a non-idempotent create tool would be valuable.

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?

Four short sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the routing alternatives. Every sentence carries a distinct piece of information.

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 four-required-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the auth requirement, and the main sibling disambiguation. It leaves duplicate-email and invalid-role error behavior unstated, which is the only meaningful remaining gap.

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%, including the hint to source the role from list_environment_roles, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, constraint, or default information beyond what the schema already documents.

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 verb and resource ('Create one user in an organization and assign a role') and immediately disambiguates from two siblings by name. An agent can tell it apart from invite_workspace_member and list_organization_users without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit routing: use list_organization_users to check for existing users, and use invite_workspace_member when the intent is to invite rather than create. The negative case ('does not invite someone to the workspace') is spelled out, which is exactly the confusion an agent would otherwise have.

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