Restore user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the actual effect ('re-granting them access to the tailnet'), which is useful for a mutation, but says nothing about required permissions or what happens if the user is not suspended.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the key precondition, with zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter mutation whose annotations already cover idempotency and destructiveness, the description conveys the precondition and the outcome. Missing only edge-case behavior (user not suspended, nonexistent ID), which is minor at this complexity.

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 a single documented userId parameter, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds no format, ID-source, or lookup guidance beyond it, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (Restore) and resource (user) plus the precondition (previously suspended), which cleanly separates it from siblings like tailscale_suspend_user and tailscale_delete_user. It stops short of explicitly naming the reverse-operation sibling, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 phrase 'previously suspended user' implies when to use it, i.e. to undo a suspension. However, it never states when NOT to use it (e.g. for a deleted user, use a different tool) or names an alternative, leaving the routing inference to the agent.

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