users_enable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the outcome ('restore VPN access') but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this requires admin permissions, if it's reversible, potential side effects, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given one parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks completeness for a mutation tool. It doesn't address permissions, side effects, or response format, which are important for safe invocation. The simplicity of the tool keeps it from being lower, but more context would help.

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% with the single parameter 'uuid' documented as 'User UUID'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or where to obtain the UUID. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Enable') and target ('a disabled Remnawave user'), with the specific outcome 'restore VPN access' providing additional context. It distinguishes from sibling 'users_disable' by being the opposite operation, though it doesn't explicitly mention other user-related tools like 'users_get' or 'users_update'.

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 this is for enabling disabled users, but provides no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'users_update' for other modifications, or prerequisites such as checking user status first. No explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with siblings is included.

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