Reactivate Company User

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral details: PATCH semantics with partial updates, return of the modified user, and specific HTTP error codes (401, 403, 404) with their meanings. This goes well beyond the annotation hints and supports effective troubleshooting.

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 slightly long but every sentence carries useful information—purpose, partial update behavior, parameter defaults, return value, error handling, and endpoint. It is front-loaded and structured logically, though it could be tightened by removing the generic 'Send only the fields you intend to change' clause since the schema exposes no mutable fields.

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 description covers essential invocation details, defaults, error scenarios, and the return value. With no output schema, it sufficiently explains success/failure behavior. It doesn't specify the structure of the 'modified company user,' but given the simplicity of the resource and the presence of sibling list tools, this is acceptable.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters (company_id and id as URL path parameters). The description adds semantics: company_id defaults to procore_set_config value, and id must be resolved with the list tool. This enhances the schema information meaningfully.

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 opens with 'Reactivate the specified User,' which is a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from related tools like reactivate_project_user or update_company_user. It also names the API endpoint and Core > Directory scope, further clarifying exactly what this tool does.

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 usage context: company_id defaults to the configured value, and id must resolve to an existing parent record via the matching list tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the guidance on prerequisites and defaults is practical and useful for correct invocation.

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