create_user

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: it specifies this is an 'admin action', includes a security warning about root_admin granting 'FULL panel access', and states the authentication requirement ('Requires Application API key'). These details aren't captured in the annotations and provide important operational context.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: purpose statement, usage context, and security/authentication requirements. Every sentence adds essential information with zero wasted words, and critical security warnings are appropriately emphasized.

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 destructive admin tool with no output schema, the description provides strong context about permissions, security implications, and authentication requirements. It covers the tool's purpose, usage relationship with other tools, and critical warnings. The main gap is lack of information about return values or error conditions, which would be helpful given the destructive nature.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter-specific information beyond the schema - only emphasizing the security implications of root_admin. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 specific action ('Create a new user account'), identifies the resource ('on the panel'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying this is an 'admin action' that enables subsequent server ownership assignments, differentiating it from other user-related tools like get_user or update_user.

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 about when to use this tool ('admin action'), mentions its relationship to other tools ('can then be assigned as owner of servers via create_server or update_server_details'), and includes a security warning about admin privileges. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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