Disable user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Disable a user (status = inactive)' implies a state mutation and hints it is reversible, but does not state side effects, permission requirements, or what happens to the user's active data. For a state-changing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 compact sentence with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded and the status detail is useful. Nothing extraneous.

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, no-output-schema tool, the burden is lower. The description is minimally adequate to identify the action, but lacks the usage-vs-siblings guidance and behavioral context that would make it complete.

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 compensate, but it adds no meaning for userId beyond the schema's bare 'string' type. An agent gets no hint about what identifier is expected (internal ID vs. email) or where to find it.

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 and resource: 'Disable a user'. The parenthetical '(status = inactive)' clarifies the effect, distinguishing it from delete_user (which removes) and enable_user (which reverses). Among many sibling tools, this is clear enough to tell apart.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus enable_user, delete_user, or update_user. Given several user-management siblings, the description does not help an agent choose between them or mention that enable_user reverses this action.

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