foundry_create_user

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint: false annotation, the description discloses important behavioral traits: required permissions and the guarantee that 'The tool never accepts, returns, or logs a password.' This is significant security-relevant information that an agent needs to know. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise, consisting of three short sentences. The first sentence state the purpose, the second provides permissions, and the third discloses the password handling guarantee. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

Given the tool has six parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter semantics, return value expectations, and any explanation of what the created user represents or how it will behave. The security-related context is helpful, but significant operational details are missing.

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 only 17% (only clientId has a description). The description text does not explain any parameters such as role, color, active, or avatar, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and constraints. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but provides zero parameter information.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a Foundry service or bot user.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like foundry_create_entity by explicitly targeting users versus generic entities. The scope (service/bot user) is specific enough to avoid confusion.

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 provides clear context by stating the required permissions: 'Requires relay scope user:write and GM access.' This implies when the tool is appropriate (when those permissions are held) and gives practical usage context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but there are no clear sibling alternatives for user creation.

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