zitadel_create_user

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable context: an invitation email is sent automatically, and supplying a userId enables idempotent retries with clean conflict behavior. This goes beyond the annotations, which only mark it as a non-destructive write. However, it doesn't mention permission requirements or what happens on conflict beyond the userId case.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, side effect (email), and idempotency detail. Front-loaded with the core action and no wasted words.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers the key behavioral aspects: it's a create operation that sends an email and supports idempotent retries. Missing details on required permissions and what the response contains (e.g., the new user ID) are minor gaps for this complexity level.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds meaning for userId (idempotency, conflict behavior) beyond the schema's description, but for email, firstName, and lastName it adds nothing beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does most of the work.

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 (Create), resource (human user), and scope (in Zitadel), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like zitadel_create_service_user and zitadel_provision_user. An agent can tell what the tool does 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 description implies this is for creating new human users and mentions the invitation email flow, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like zitadel_provision_user or zitadel_create_service_user. A clear use case is provided (human user with email invitation), which is better than no guidance, but lacks exclusion criteria or explicit routing to siblings.

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