Enable user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the write gate requirement, the dry-run fallback when the gate is absent, and the OID/userName mismatch refusal — all non-obvious traits. It omits whether the change is reversible or logged, and there is no note on return shape, though an output schema exists.

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?

Front-loaded with the state transition, then the identity constraint, then the gate behavior — a sensible order. The clause 'so the person confirming it reads the right name' is a slightly indirect justification for the mismatch check and could be tightened.

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 two-parameter state-toggle tool with a full output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what changes, identity validation, authorization gate, and the dry-run fallback. Nothing essential is missing given the schema handles parameters and returns.

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 100% and both parameters are already documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description largely restates the schema's userName definition (login, not full name; must match oid), adding only the consequence — that a mismatch refuses the call — rather than new per-parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus the exact state transition: 'Enable a midPoint user (activation → enabled)'. That wording distinguishes it clearly from disable_user and from read siblings like get_user, without needing the schema.

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?

Explains the operating conditions: the call is refused when userName does not match the OID, requires the write gate, and falls back to a dry-run preview otherwise. It never explicitly names disable_user as the inverse operation, but the enable/disable pairing is unambiguous from the verb.

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