enable_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is a write operation and returns {"success": true} on success, but it does not cover permissions required, side effects, error cases, or whether the operation 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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose and operation type, then gives a concrete lookup instruction and the return shape. Every sentence is short and earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 one-parameter enable tool with a full input schema, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, mutation behavior, how to find the required ID, and the success response, though it omits permission or side-effect details.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single user_id parameter. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining how to obtain the required ID: use list_users and match by name or email. That is useful operational context not present in the input schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Re-activate (enable) a previously deactivated user.' It also labels the operation as a 'Write operation,' which clarifies it is not a read or update. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its closest sibling, disable_user, or explain why an agent should choose this over a general user update.

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 by 'previously deactivated user,' and the description gives practical prerequisite guidance for finding user_id via list_users. It does not, however, state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as disable_user or update_user, nor does it include any exclusions or conditions.

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