disable_user

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

Annotations already declare the tool idempotent and non-destructive. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether disabling terminates active sessions or requires admin privileges. It does not contradict annotations.

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, compact sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately sized but extremely minimal, offering only basic information beyond the title.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description omits key context: what 'disable' implies for user access, whether existing sessions are affected, and the role of the optional 'device' parameter. The output schema reduces the need to describe returns, but other context is still lacking.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain the 'name' and 'device' parameters. It provides no compensation for the missing parameter documentation, leaving agents to guess based on parameter names alone.

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 clearly states the action 'Disables' and the resource 'a user', making the purpose evident. While it doesn't explicitly contrast sibling tools like remove_user or disconnect_user, the verb choice distinguishes it sufficiently.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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