set_user_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does so by stating the write risk, reversibility, the refusal edge case, and the fact that dry_run does not bypass the refusal. This is substantial and goes beyond basic mutation semantics.

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 organized with a purpose statement, a behavioral note, and an Args block. Each sentence adds value, and the structure makes it easy to scan. There is no filler or redundant repetition.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description covers all necessary invocation details: purpose, parameters, behavior, and edge cases. The dry_run behavior under refusal is a subtle detail that would be hard to discover otherwise, making this notably complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning and purpose. It clarifies that enabled=true/false maps to enabling/disabling, dry_run provides preview, access_key is sourced from iam_users, and target defaults to the configured target.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Enable or disable an IAM user.' This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_user or remove_user. The additional context about reversibility and the refusal edge case further clarifies its scope.

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 clear context on when to use the tool and includes an explicit exclusion (refuses when targeting the access key used for authentication). It also directs users to get access_key from iam_users. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for similar actions, leaving some gap in explicit comparison.

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