appwrite_update_user_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether disabling a user terminates active sessions, if the change is reversible, required permission levels, or what the response indicates upon success. 'Enable or disable' implies mutation but lacks critical safety context.

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 sentence that gets directly to the point, but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be implementation metadata rather than user-facing documentation. The brevity crosses into under-specification given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 user management mutation with no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It should explain parameter semantics, side effects of account status changes, and return value structure, but provides only the basic action verb.

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 has 0% description coverage for its three parameters (site, user_id, status). The description compensates minimally by implying 'status' is boolean through 'enable/disable' terminology, but provides no explanation for 'site' (domain? project ID?) or 'user_id' format expectations, leaving all three parameters effectively undocumented.

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 tool enables or disables user accounts, using specific verbs (enable/disable) and identifying the resource (user account). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like appwrite_update_user_email or appwrite_update_user_name by focusing on account activation state rather than profile attributes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like appwrite_delete_user (permanent removal vs temporary disable) or appwrite_create_user. No prerequisites or warnings about the impact of disabling an active user are included.

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