Re-enable Identities

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint false) and not destructive (destructiveHint false). The description adds 'restoring login access' as behavioral context, which is helpful but does not disclose side effects or permissions.

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 are concise and front-load the purpose. However, the second sentence is redundant with the schema. Could be slightly tighter by omitting the parameter line.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It states the action and effect. Lacks details on undo behavior or invalid ID handling, but these are minor.

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%, and the description's Args section only restates the schema's description ('Array of identity IDs to re-enable'). No additional meaning or constraints beyond the 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 uses a specific verb ('Re-enable') and resource ('identities'), and adds 'restoring login access' for clarity. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like disable_identities and delete_identities.

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 the tool is for re-enabling previously disabled identities but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., disable, delete). No context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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