set_user_status

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

Goes well past annotations: discloses reversibility to prior status, the self-target refusal edge case, and that dry_run does not bypass enforcement. Annotations only say destructive/idempotent hints; the description adds the operational guardrails that actually matter.

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] tag, then the critical refusal rule, then Args. Slightly verbose with '(from iam_users)' and the aside about the undo, but every element adds signal.

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?

No output schema, but the description covers mutation effect, reversibility, preview semantics, and the refusal case. Return shape is only implied by 'Reversible -> prior status', a minor gap for a write tool with no output schema.

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 must carry params. It documents all four (access_key, enabled, dry_run, target) with brief meaning, including the default target. Values are terse but sufficient to call correctly.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Enable or disable an IAM user status') with a [WRITE][risk=medium] tag and a Reversibility callout. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like iam_users (list) and create_user/remove_user by scoping to status toggling.

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?

States a strong when-NOT condition: refused when targeting the tool's own access key, enforced even under dry_run. Lacks explicit routing to alternatives (e.g., use remove_user for deletion), but the exclusion guidance is concrete and rare.

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