yaaif_user_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and covers the key behaviors: Keycloak creation, one-time password that must be reset, tenant user save, one-time return of temporary_password, and permission requirements. It does not disclose defaults for active or role, but the core side effects are transparent.

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?

Four dense sentences front-load the action and return value, then add auth and alternative-contract context. The final downstream sentence is slightly tangential for agent invocation but still useful.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the essential behavioral, permission, and return-value context. Remaining gaps are parameter-level details (active default, role enum) rather than missing operation semantics.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains confirm_admin_grant and role (ADMIN) and implies email/name, but leaves active and the exact role value set undocumented.

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 names a concrete multi-step operation: create a Keycloak email/password user, generate a one-time password, and save the YAAIF tenant user. This clearly distinguishes it from read/list siblings like yaaif_user_list and yaaif_user_get.

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?

It states the required users:write permission and the special ADMIN-grant condition (caller ADMIN + confirm_admin_grant=true), giving clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It also notes downstream systems can use the same POST /api/users contract with a ymp- key, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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