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

Beyond the destructiveHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses what actually happens (sign-in blocked, all sessions terminated, assistants stopped), the approval gate that may hold the call, the restore path, and the billing behavior ($0.25 per call, free on failure). This is unusually rich behavioral context that the annotations alone could not convey.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the effect, then prerequisite, then approval caveat, then inverse and cost. No filler; each clause carries distinct decision-relevant information.

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 one-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers effects, dependencies, approval behavior, reversibility, and cost — everything an agent needs to invoke it responsibly.

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% and the single 'person' parameter is already documented as directory id or email, so the description need not restate formats. The only added hint is verifying identity via directory_get_user, which is workflow guidance rather than parameter semantics.

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 concrete verb+resource (block sign-in, end sessions) and the real-world scenario (a leaver), plus the secondary effect that the person's own assistants on the account stop. It also names directory_restore_user as the inverse, so it is clearly distinguishable from siblings like directory_update_user or directory_disconnect.

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?

Explicitly prescribes a prerequisite ('Check who it is with directory_get_user first'), the condition under which the call is deferred (owner approval on accounts with an owner), and the alternative for undoing it (directory_restore_user). An agent has everything needed to decide whether and when to call it.

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