Deactivate user

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the user's status is set to disabled, the access block is immediate, and the user record is retained. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 one clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior and adds the important non-deletion caveat efficiently.

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 simple one-parameter mutation with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential effect and non-destructive nature. However, it omits any mention of reversibility, reactivation via the activate sibling, or what happens to existing sessions beyond saying access is blocked, leaving some contextual gaps.

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?

The single username parameter is indirectly linked by the description ('a user's status'), but no dedicated explanation is given for what the username refers to or how it is used. The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description provides only minimal compensation by indicating that the parameter identifies the affected user.

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 states a specific action ('Sets a user's status to disabled'), the target resource (the user), and the immediate effect (blocking access). It also clarifies that the operation is not deletion, which helps distinguish it from removing users, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling operations like hold or activate.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as activate, hold, or create. The phrase 'immediately blocking their access' implies urgency or a need to revoke access, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool recommendations are provided.

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