Enable or disable an account

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false, but the description adds the non-obvious consequences: tokens are preserved and a disabled account is excluded from every operation, including read fan-outs. That is the key behavioral fact an agent needs and it is not encoded in the annotations. It stops short of stating reversibility or whether enable is idempotent.

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?

Two short sentences, no redundancy, and the most decision-relevant fact (tokens are not deleted) is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 two-parameter boolean toggle with full schema coverage, annotations for the safety profile, and no output schema, the description covers what is required. The only gap is the absence of routing guidance versus sibling account-management tools.

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%, so both parameters (account id, enabled boolean) are already fully documented, including the multiple-account disambiguation hint. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb pair (enable/disable) and resource (account), and clarifies the scope of the change: tokens survive. This cleanly separates it from destructive siblings like disconnect_account or delete operations. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the reader infers this is the tool for toggling an account's active state. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or comparison against disconnect_account or set_account_role, which are the nearest alternatives.

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