grocy_users_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds two pieces of context not in the annotations: the password is redacted in previews, and a dry-run is triggered by omitting confirm. It does not explain duplicate-user behavior or failure modes, which matters given idempotentHint=false, but the added behavioral detail is solid.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The endpoint mention (POST /api/users) is slightly extraneous to an agent, and the confirm dry-run rule duplicates the schema description, but overall the description is efficient and well-ordered.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with low schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the dry-run and redaction behavior but leaves required-field semantics, optional-field purpose, and duplicate/failure behavior unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would need to discover elsewhere.

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 only 17%, so the description should compensate. It addresses confirm (redundantly, since the schema already documents it) and mentions password redaction, but says nothing about username semantics (uniqueness, length), the optional first_name/last_name/picture_file_name fields, or their meaning. Most parameters remain undocumented in both places.

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 a Grocy user') plus the backing endpoint (POST /api/users). The create action is naturally distinct from the sibling tools grocy_users_list, grocy_users_update, and grocy_users_delete, so an agent can select it without opening the 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?

The sentence 'Omit confirm for a dry-run' gives useful procedural guidance for previewing the write, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over grocy_users_update or what prerequisites (e.g., admin permissions, unique username) apply. Usage is implied by the name rather than stated.

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