wetrack_create_user

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

The description discloses that an invitation email is sent, which is a side effect beyond the schema. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It does not mention required permissions, idempotency, behavior if the user already exists, or any other side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation operation.

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 concise, with a single-sentence summary followed by a clean list of parameter explanations. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler. Every line provides value, making it easy for an agent to scan.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return value details are covered externally. However, the description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like wetrack_bulk_create_users or wetrack_update_user, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as authentication or admin privileges. For a create operation, it is mostly complete but lacks explicit routing and prerequisite information.

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 0%, but the description compensates well by providing examples for each parameter (e.g., 'Jane', 'Smith', 'jane@company.com') and enumerating the allowed role values ('ADMIN', 'VITHI_USER', 'EMPLOYEE', or 'CUSTOMER'). This adds meaningful context that the schema lacks, making parameter usage clear.

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 a single user account and send an invitation email.' This is a specific verb with a resource, and the word 'single' distinguishes it from bulk creation. The purpose is unambiguous and easily differentiated from siblings like wetrack_bulk_create_users and wetrack_resend_invite.

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 implies the tool is for single-user creation via the word 'single', but it does not explicitly mention when to use wetrack_bulk_create_users for multiple users or when to use wetrack_update_user for modifications. There is no explicit exclusion or alternative routing, leaving the agent to infer the context.

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