disable_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavior: the account is locked rather than deleted. However, it does not mention reversibility, permissions required, effects on active sessions, or any other side effects, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action and adds a clarifying distinction in parentheses. Every word earns its place, with no repetition or filler.

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 tool with one fully described parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It communicates the primary purpose and clarifies the non-destructive nature. It could mention re-enabling via enable_user or note reversibility, but these are minor for this simple action.

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?

The description does not mention the uid parameter, but the input schema provides 100% coverage with a clear description for the sole parameter. Schema coverage is complete, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; there is no additional semantic value added by the description.

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: 'Disable a FreeIPA user account.' The parenthetical 'locks it without deleting' adds precise scope and clearly distinguishes this from the sibling delete_user tool. An agent can immediately tell what the tool does.

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 this tool is the non-destructive alternative to delete_user by noting 'without deleting,' but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer this over enable_user or delete_user. Usage context is implied rather than clearly articulated.

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