forcepoint_user_deactivate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses mutating and potentially disruptive behavior, and notes an auth dependency. However, it does not specify what deactivation does to user sessions, tokens, or whether it is reversible (though reactivate sibling hints at reversibility). This is a minimal but non-trivial disclosure.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word earns its place. No fluff or 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?

The tool is simple (no output schema, few params), and the description covers the essential behavioral warning and auth condition. It does not explain the outcome or side effects on the user record, but given the sibling tools and low complexity, it is mostly complete. A bit more detail on deactivation effects would make it fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only adds context for authorizationKey (conditional requirement), but does not explain userId vs companyemail usage. The required companyemail is clear from the schema, but the optional userId and authorizationKey remain ambiguous. Partial compensation for one parameter only.

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 action ('Deactivate a Forcepoint user') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like forcepoint_user_delete and forcepoint_user_reactivate by using the term 'deactivate' rather than destroy or re-enable.

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 by noting the operation is 'mutating and potentially disruptive' and mentions the conditional requirement for authorizationKey. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling list and the deactivate action imply when this should be used compared to reactivate or delete. Slight deduction for lack of explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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