Disable user

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

The annotations already disclose that the tool is not read-only and not destructive, and the description adds that it locks an account instance-wide. However, it omits important behavioral context for a mutation operation, such as reversibility, session effects, permission requirements, and what specifically happens to the account. With annotations lowering the bar, this is adequate but incomplete.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, object, and scope immediately.

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 an administrative mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the definition is too sparse. An agent lacks enough information about permissions, expected effects, reversibility, and how to provide the required user identifier.

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 tool has four parameters including the required user_id. The description only implies that a user is targeted; it does not explain user_id or the form, params, and json_body parameters, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 and resource: disable/lock a user account. It also states scope with "instance-wide," which helps distinguish it from narrower account or session actions. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as vaultwarden_deauth_user or vaultwarden_delete_user, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vaultwarden_enable_user, vaultwarden_deauth_user, or vaultwarden_delete_user. It only implies an admin-style user-management operation and does not state prerequisites or exclusions.

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