zitadel_provision_user

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false; the description adds real substance on top: atomicity, the three cascade steps (create user, assign project role via v2 AuthorizationService, grant ORG_USER_MANAGER for admins), the idempotency key semantics, and the no-super-admin rationale. It stops short of stating permission requirements or conflict/error behaviour when an email already exists.

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?

Front-loads the verb and scope, then enumerates the cascade compactly, ending with the return shape and a one-line 'Safe to re-run' reassurance. Dense jargon ('app-portal cascade-up', 'no-super-admin pattern') makes it slightly hard to parse but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully supplies the return shape { zitadelUserId, role, authorizationId } and covers idempotency and role-grant side effects. It omits failure/conflict handling and required permissions, which an agent calling a mutating provisioning tool would want.

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: userId is explained as the idempotent-retry key ('idempotent by email or supplied userId'), and grantOrgManager's admin-only coupling to ORG_USER_MANAGER clarifies why the default varies by role. projectId and the required fields gain no extra description-level detail.

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 (provision) and resource (user) and scopes it to 'the core SSO apps (the app-portal cascade-up)', which implicitly separates it from the raw zitadel_create_user sibling by signalling it is a composite operation. It never names a sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being routed.

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 conveys context ('for the core SSO apps', 'safe to re-run') and the no-super-admin pattern, so the intended scenario is implied. It gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or comparison against zitadel_create_user, zitadel_create_user_grant, or zitadel_grant_org_manager, which are the obvious alternatives.

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