disable_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so excellently. It discloses the write nature, risk level, reversibility, reading of the user first to record an undo, live session behavior, and the self-refusal safety guard.

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 well-organized and front-loaded: a concise summary, then behavioral context, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value and no unnecessary repetition exists.

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?

The description is rich for a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema. It covers behavior, side effects, arguments, and edge cases. It lacks explicit detail about return values or permission requirements, but the overall context is strong.

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 0%, so the description's Args section is essential. It adds meaningful semantics for all three parameters: where user_id comes from, what dry_run does, and how target defaults. This fully compensates for the sparse schema.

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 states a specific action ('Disable a user') with a clear scope ('blocks sign-in') and explicitly notes reversibility. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like enable_user and revoke_user_sessions.

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 strong usage context: it is the 'containment move for a compromised/stale account,' mentions pairing with revoke_user_sessions, and explains the dry_run preview mode. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name direct alternatives, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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