admin_add_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'White team only' (an authorization constraint) but does not describe side effects, return values, required permissions beyond white team access, or any potential consequences. For a mutation tool like this, more transparency is expected.

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 comprised of two short, direct sentences: the action and the authorization. No filler or redundancy; every word serves a purpose.

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 simplicity of the tool (three parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is relatively minimal but not entirely inadequate. It communicates the core action and a key constraint, yet leaves out details like what the success response looks like or whether there are preconditions (e.g., team existence). For a simple create operation, this is borderline acceptable.

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 input schema covers all three parameters (username, password, team_id) with descriptions that are sufficient for an agent to understand their meaning. The description adds no extra semantic detail, but since the schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'a new user account', making the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like admin_add_team and admin_update_password by specifying it creates users, not teams or password changes.

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 phrase 'White team only' adds a usage restriction, implying this tool is intended for authorized white team members. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any when-not-to-use guidance. The usage context is implied by the tool's purpose rather than explicit.

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