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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the concrete consequence an agent needs: the employee loses kiwiHR access and disappears from active lists, and the change is reversible via kiwihr_activate_user. It also exposes the underlying GraphQL mutation. It does not state permission requirements or side effects on related records (timesheets, journeys), which is the only remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with 'WRITE, ACCESS-CHANGING' so risk level is visible before anything else, then two tight sentences with zero filler. Every clause (effects, reversibility, mutation name) earns its place.

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 mutation with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description adequately explains impact and reversibility. Missing only edge-case behavior such as what happens when the user_id is already inactive or not found, which an agent might want to know before calling.

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% for the single required 'user_id' with min/max length constraints, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about the identifier (e.g., that it must reference an active user), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('deactivate an active employee') and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling 'kiwihr_activate_user' by naming the reverse operation. The scope qualifier 'active' plus the stated effects (loses access, drops out of active lists) leave no ambiguity about what the call does.

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?

Gives a clear usage context ('typically after they leave') and names the explicit alternative for undoing it ('Reversible with kiwihr_activate_user'). It does not spell out when NOT to use this (e.g., versus kiwihr_update_user for a status change or versus a hard delete), so it stops short of the 5-level when/when-not pair.

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