add user

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

Annotations already declare the operation is neither read-only, idempotent, nor destructive, and openWorldHint is true. The description adds the underlying command name and a 'verified' qualifier, but it does not explain side effects, permission requirements, or failure behavior beyond what annotations imply.

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 only two short sentences and front-loads the core purpose. The second sentence about the verified command is slightly redundant but adds implementation clarity without bloating the definition.

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?

Although an output schema exists and annotations provide some safety context, the description leaves the agent without usage conditions and without parameter-level guidance. For a 6-parameter mutation command with very low schema coverage, this is a meaningful completeness 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 only 17% and the description mentions none of the parameters (user, password, email, package, firstName, lastName). With such low coverage, the description was expected to compensate, but it adds no semantic guidance for any parameter.

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 states a specific action ('Create a HestiaCP user') and identifies the exact backend command ('v-add-user'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_users or delete_user.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any prerequisites/exclusions. The description only states what it does, not the conditions under which the agent should invoke it.

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