enable_user

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that this is a write operation with high risk, that it is reversible, and that dry_run previews without changing. It also clarifies the risk label is descriptive, not an enforcement gate. This is thorough, though it omits error behavior or postconditions.

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 compact and front-loaded, with a clear risk header, a brief explanatory paragraph, and a concise args list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, risk, usage caveats, and all parameters. It notably explains the risk=high tag and dry_run behavior. A minor gap is the lack of explicit success/error indicators, but the given context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The schema provides only names and types with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates fully: user_id sources from list_users, dry_run previews without changing, and target defaults when omitted. This adds meaningful context that is absent from the 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 opens with '[WRITE][risk=high] Re-enable a user (restores sign-in); reversible,' which clearly states the action and its effect. It unambiguously identifies the tool's purpose and naturally distinguishes it from siblings like disable_user.

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 explains when it is appropriate by noting it reverses a containment action, and it advises that execution depends on agent judgement or account permissions. It also recommends using dry_run=True for preview. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like undo_apply, though this is an implicit distinction.

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