Reactivate Company User

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world. The description confirms it updates the record and returns the modified object, adding minimal extra context. No side effects or permissions are disclosed beyond 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 three sentences, but the second sentence is grammatically awkward and partially redundant with the first. The API endpoint info may be unnecessary for the agent. Could be more concise and polished.

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 has only 2 required parameters, no output schema, and is simple. The description covers action, usage, and return value. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., user must be inactive), error conditions, and authorization requirements, which would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. It only restates required parameters and the endpoint pattern, which does not enhance semantic understanding.

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 verb 'Reactivate' and the resource 'User' (Directory record). It distinguishes from siblings like reactivate_company_vendor or deactivate_company_user by specifying the resource type and action. The endpoint path confirms reactivation of inactive users.

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 usage context ('update an existing Directory records') and lists required parameters, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., update_company_user, bulk_activation). The endpoint implies it is for reactivating inactive users, but no when-not guidance is given.

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