security-disable-user

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. However, the description adds nothing beyond them: it does not say whether the change is reversible (or that security-enable-user reverses it), whether active sessions are revoked, or what permissions are required for a destructive account mutation.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness is also the source of the definition's missing guidance.

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 destructive account-mutation with an undocumented required parameter and no output schema, the definition is far too thin. It should at minimum identify the identity format, the reversibility, and how it differs from remove-user and unlock-user.

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% and the single required 'identity' parameter is completely undocumented — it is unclear whether this is a username, domain-qualified login, email, or GUID. The description does not compensate for that gap in any way.

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?

States a clear verb+resource (disables a Sitecore user account), so an agent knows exactly what operation runs. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as security-enable-user, security-remove-user, or security-unlock-user, which share the same resource and similar verbs.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given and no alternatives are named, even though the sibling list contains obvious confusables (remove-user for deletion, unlock-user for lockouts, enable-user for reversal). The agent must infer that 'disable' is a reversible soft-deactivation rather than a removal.

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