Activate or deactivate a user

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by confirming history is preserved. It does not mention permissions, reversibility, or side effects on seat allocation, but the non-destructive nature is clearly disclosed, exceeding what annotations alone provide.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose and key differentiator. There is no redundant or unnecessary text, making it highly concise.

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 simple status-change tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the critical nuance (history preservation) without being overly verbose. Annotations clarify the mutation/destructive profile, and the schema covers parameter details, so the description completes the picture sufficiently. A brief note on permissions or reactivation would push it to 5, but it's adequate as-is.

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 all three parameters documented, including the important detail that INACTIVE frees the seat but keeps data. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Changes') and resource ('a member's status'), and adds the key distinction 'without deleting their history', which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like clockify_remove_user. The title 'Activate or deactivate a user' reinforces the purpose.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need to change a user's status without deleting history) but does not explicitly state alternative tools or exclusion criteria. Sibling tools like clockify_remove_user exist but are not referenced, leaving the guidance implicit.

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