Elastic MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Enable or disable' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires admin privileges, if changes are reversible, what happens to the user's data when disabled, or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place in conveying the core purpose.

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 is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens when a user is enabled/disabled, what permissions are required, whether the operation is idempotent, or what the return value looks like. Given the complexity of user account management, more contextual information is needed.

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%, so the input schema already fully documents both parameters ('username' and 'enabled'). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as username format requirements or the implications of enabling/disabling. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Enable or disable') and resource ('a user account'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling user management tools like 'create_user' or 'delete_user', which would require mentioning this is specifically for toggling account status rather than creating or removing users.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_user' or 'delete_user', nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring admin permissions or specific contexts. It simply states what the tool does without indicating appropriate usage scenarios.

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