set_user_status

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds a genuinely important behavioral fact not in the annotations: dry_run defaults to true and only reports the proposed change against current state, which prevents accidental mutation. It still omits what an actual suspension does (active sessions, tokens, reversibility) and any permission requirements.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the capability statement is front-loaded and the dry_run caveat follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a destructive, four-parameter mutation tool the description covers the safe-preview mode and role vocabulary but leaves the mutation's side effects and authorization requirements unstated.

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 burden and does explain two of four parameters well: the accepted role values (end-user, agent, admin) — critical since the schema declares no enum — and dry_run's default and effect. user_id and suspended are never described beyond what their names imply.

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 names a specific verb pair and resource: 'Suspend or reactivate a user, and/or change their role.' It even extends beyond the tool name set_user_status by revealing the role-change capability. However, it never references any sibling tool, so an agent gets no explicit routing signal versus find_user or offboarding_report.

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?

Usage is implied by the operations described (suspend/reactivate/role change), and the dry_run default gives a safe-preview path, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the twelve siblings.

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