forcepoint_user_reactivate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the operation is mutating and mentions a conditional authentication requirement, which is useful. However, it lacks details on side effects, reversibility, or expected behavior after reactivation, leaving significant gaps given no annotations.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that state the purpose and the key prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the core action, includes no filler, and every clause adds value. This is an ideal example of brevity without losing essential information.

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 relatively simple with 3 parameters and no output schema, yet the description omits guidance on differentiating userId from companyemail and does not clarify the operational effect of 'reactivate'. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is only minimally complete, leaving the agent to infer important details.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only adds meaning to one parameter (authorizationKey) via the conditional requirement statement. The required parameter companyemail and optional userId are not explained at all, leaving the agent without guidance on how to choose the correct identity parameter.

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 'Reactivate a Forcepoint user' clearly states a specific verb and resource, making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It inherently distinguishes from sibling tools like forcepoint_user_deactivate and forcepoint_user_delete by the action verb. The additional 'Mutating' note reinforces its state-changing nature.

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 some usage context by stating the operation is mutating and requiring authorizationKey under certain conditions. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or alternative tools. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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