enable_user

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses reversibility, the restored sign-in effect, the audit-only nature of the risk=high label, the dry-run preview, and that execution authority rests with the agent/connecting account. These are valuable traits the annotations do not convey. Minor tension remains: annotations mark destructiveHint=true while the description stresses 'reversible'.

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 [WRITE][risk=high] tag followed by effect, rationale, and a scannable Args block. The middle paragraph about the risk label is slightly editorial but conveys decision-relevant context, so waste is minimal.

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 mutating tool with annotations but no output schema, the description covers effect, reversibility, preview, and all params. It omits what happens when the user is already enabled (relevant given idempotentHint=false), a minor but real gap.

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 carries the full burden and largely does: it documents all three params, tells where user_id comes from (list_users), explains target's config origin and default-omit behavior, and clarifies dry_run. It adds real provenance beyond the bare 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Re-enable a user') and clarifies the effect ('restores sign-in'), which cleanly contrasts it with the sibling disable_user. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternative, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

It implies when to use it ('reverses a containment action') and offers the dry_run=True preview, but never names alternatives such as disable_user or undo_apply, nor states exclusions. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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