users_disable

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the action is 'disable' with outcome 'block VPN access', but doesn't disclose whether this is reversible (vs. users_delete), permission requirements, side effects, or what happens to existing user data/subscriptions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

Single sentence with zero waste - every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and outcome. Front-loaded with the core action and immediately specifies the concrete effect.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose but lacks information about behavioral consequences, reversibility, error conditions, or response format. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps given the tool's destructive nature.

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% (parameter 'uuid' is fully described as 'User UUID'), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, but doesn't need to given complete schema coverage.

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 ('Disable') and target ('a Remnawave user'), with specific outcome ('block VPN access'). It distinguishes from siblings like users_enable (opposite action) and users_delete (different destructive operation).

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 implies usage context (to block VPN access for a user) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like users_delete or users_revoke_subscription. It provides functional purpose but lacks comparative guidance with sibling tools.

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