Deactivate Member

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further by disclosing the exact blast radius (sessions revoked, sign-in blocked) and — crucially — what is *not* destroyed (account, pages, roles persist). It also surfaces a self-targeting restriction and an authorization requirement that no annotation conveys.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the state change and its scope, then the gating conditions. No filler, no restating of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a destructive, permission-gated, reversible-by-sibling mutation with one well-documented parameter, the description covers consequences, reversibility, audience, and auth — nothing an agent needs is missing.

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% and the single 'user' property already documents 'email or user id'. The description only says 'a person' and adds no format, resolution, or ambiguity guidance beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Deactivate a person') and immediately defines the resulting state: signed out everywhere, cannot sign in. It also names the sibling inverse (activate_member), so an agent can distinguish deactivate from activate or change_workspace_role without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit trigger ('Use it when someone leaves'), an explicit constraint ('You cannot deactivate yourself'), and an explicit prerequisite ('Needs a workspace admin or owner'), plus the escape hatch via activate_member. This is when-to-use, when-not, and how-to-reverse in two sentences.

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