set_user_enabled

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: explains the exact side effects of disabling (sessions and app passwords stop working, files/shares retained), the reversibility (re-enable restores access), the self-operation ban, and the distinct permission levels for the destructive vs write path. This meaningfully contextualizes destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true.

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?

Front-loads the core action and privileges, then layers on behavioral detail. The Args/Returns framing is a little verbose for an MCP description but every sentence carries information, so waste is minimal.

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-param mutation tool, the description covers purpose, permissions, side effects, reversibility, and both parameters. An output schema exists, so the brief 'Confirmation message' note is sufficient and no return-value detail is required.

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 0%, so the description must carry both parameters, and it does: user_id is identified as the target and enabled is defined as true=enable/false=disable. It does not specify the expected format of user_id (ID vs email), leaving a minor gap.

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 pair (enable/disable) and resource (user account) unambiguously. An agent can immediately distinguish it from siblings like update_user, delete_user, or set_user_status without opening the 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 clear prerequisites and constraints: requires admin/sub-admin privileges, you cannot toggle your own account, and disabling vs enabling need different permission levels. It doesn't explicitly route to an alternative sibling (e.g., delete_user) or state when to prefer this over them, so it stops short of the 5.

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