Create User

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not state permission requirements, that duplicate emails may be rejected, that creation is non-idempotent (retries could create duplicates), or what the caller receives. The schema's confirm flag ('Set true only when the user asked for exactly this action') signals a confirmation contract the description never mentions.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, but it does not earn its place because it duplicates the title rather than conveying anything new. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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?

For a mutation tool with seven parameters, a nested payload object, alternative body encodings (payload vs payload_file vs flat flags), zero required top-level fields, and no output schema, the description omits everything an agent needs beyond the schema: which fields are effectively required (payload requires email), which creation mode to choose, and the confirm contract. Rich schema coverage and annotations partially compensate, but the description itself is not complete enough.

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 every one of the seven parameters (src, name, email, account, confirm, payload, payload_file) is documented in the schema itself, including the payload/payload_file mutual exclusion. Per the rubric this sets a baseline of 3; the description adds no parameter meaning of its own, so it cannot rise above the baseline.

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?

"Create a new user" restates the tool name (create_user) and title (Create User) almost verbatim, giving no more information than the identifier itself. It names a verb and resource, but does not distinguish this tool from siblings like create_enrollment, update_user, or submit_school_batch, nor does it say what a created user gets (access, enrollment, invitation).

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as update_user (for existing accounts) or submit_school_batch (for bulk creation). An agent must infer entirely from the name which of the several creation/update tools applies.

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