Disable a Micro app user

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

Beyond the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations, the description adds rich behavioral detail: it explicitly states what is preserved and what is immediately revoked. For a destructive operation, this materially clarifies consequences. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 dense, well-structured sentences. The action is front-loaded, followed by what is preserved and what is immediately revoked. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The description is nearly complete for a destructive mutation: it defines the action, the preservation guarantees, and immediate effects, while the output schema covers return values. It does not state whether disabling is reversible or what permissions are required, but the existence of micro_user_enable and the annotations reduce that gap.

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 67%, with path and confirm documented and user having a format/pattern. The description reinforces that a single explicit user is targeted but does not clarify the user parameter's semantics beyond the schema. It is adequate but not compensating for the undocumented user field.

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 action (disable), a specific target (one explicit app user), and the exact scope (preserves records/purchases/entitlements; revokes sessions, links, and grants). This clearly distinguishes it from listing users, enabling a user, or deleting records.

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 gives clear context for when to use it—disabling a single user while keeping their data—but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives such as micro_user_enable, micro_user_sessions_revoke, or micro_member_remove. When-not-to-use guidance is absent, so the agent must infer usage.

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