remnawave_create_user

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

The annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds that the tool 'returns created user details including subscription URL', but does not disclose potential failure modes (e.g., duplicate username, validation errors) or confirm idempotency. Given the annotations, the description provides marginal additional behavioral 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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and required inputs. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 has 11 parameters and an output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain the optional parameters, their purpose, or typical use cases. While the output schema exists, the description lacks completeness for a sophisticated creation tool, leaving the agent uninformed about the full capabilities.

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 description only mentions the two required parameters (username and expire_at), while the schema defines 11 parameters. With schema description coverage at 0% (the tool description does not cover most parameters), the description fails to compensate by explaining key optional parameters like status, traffic_limit_bytes, or their meaningful values. The schema parameter descriptions exist but the tool description adds very little value.

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 action ('create'), resource ('new VPN user'), and key required attributes ('username and expiration date'). It also mentions the return value ('subscription URL'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_user 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?

The description explicitly calls out the two required fields (username and expire_at), making it clear what is needed. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_user or revoke_user, nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints beyond the required fields.

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