disable_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation prevents login and preserves account data, and 'temporary access suspension' implies reversibility. It still omits permissions required, active-session handling, and the exact response, but the core behavior is well explained.

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 front-loaded and short, with a useful example. There is minor redundancy between 'Disable a user account' and 'Deactivates a user account,' but nothing is wasted overall.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the effect, usage context, and gives an example. The main remaining gap is operational context such as required permissions.

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% for the single username parameter, so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The example reinforces usage syntax but adds little beyond that, matching the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Disable a user account') and clarifies the effect ('preventing login while preserving account data'), which distinguishes it from delete_user. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate against nearby siblings like enable_user or modify_user.

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?

It provides a clear usage context: 'Useful for temporary access suspension.' This tells the agent when to choose it, but it does not state when not to use it or explicitly point to enable_user for reversal or delete_user for permanent removal.

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