disable_user

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true) by disclosing that it reads the user first to record an undo, that live sessions are unaffected, that it refuses to disable its own authenticating account, and that even dry_run must report that refusal rather than preview. This is unusually rich behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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?

Well front-loaded with the verb and effect, then behavior, then args. It is slightly verbose and the Args block repeats some behavior already stated above, but every line carries useful information and no sentence is wasted.

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 output schema, the description covers the safety profile, reversibility/undo, the refusal edge case, session side effects, and every parameter. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does: it documents all three parameters (user_id format and source from list_users, dry_run preview behavior, and target as IdP name from config with default-omit semantics). Nothing is left ambiguous.

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 ('Disable a user (blocks sign-in)') plus the key effect, and the reversibility qualifier separates it from the sibling enable_user. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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 frames the tool as 'the containment move for a compromised/stale account' and names the required companion action ('pair with revoke_user_sessions') since live sessions survive. It also calls out the dry_run preview path, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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