auth_enable_user

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this operates on the Auth emulator, but says nothing about idempotency, what happens if the account is already enabled or missing, whether the change is reversible, or what the response contains — significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

A single short sentence with zero wasted wording, and the action is front-loaded. It is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than being an exemplar of tight, informative structure.

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 mutation tool with three parameters, no required fields, no annotations, and no output schema, this is too thin. An agent cannot tell whether uid or uids is expected, what error surfaces on an unknown account, or how this pairs with auth_disable_user.

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 uid, uids, and tenant are each documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that and does not address the ambiguity of both uid and uids being optional with no required parameter, so the baseline 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?

Names a specific verb ('Enable') and resource ('Auth emulator account') with a clear precondition ('disabled'). It is distinguishable from auth_disable_user by inversion, but it never names that sibling or the emulator-scope siblings, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 phrase 'Enable a disabled ... account again' implies the triggering condition (the account must currently be disabled), but there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of how to locate a disabled account (e.g., auth_list_users), and no pointer to auth_disable_user as the inverse operation.

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