Enable a Micro app user

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

Annotations already cover readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds a useful behavioral constraint: the restore does not create a session. It doesn't contradict the annotations and provides extra context beyond the structured hints.

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 sentence with no filler. The core operation and the key side-effect exclusion are front-loaded in a compact form.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the core behavior. It does not explain edge cases such as enabling an already-enabled user, but the annotations/schema cover the remaining invocation context.

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 reinforces that the 'user' parameter targets a single disabled app user, but it does not explain the UUID format (already in the schema) or the 'path' parameter's role. With 50% schema coverage, it adds a little meaning but leaves the user parameter partly inferred from its name.

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 action ('Restore sign-in access') on a specific resource ('one explicit disabled app user') and clarifies it is not about creating a session. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like micro_user_disable and session-related tools.

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?

It implies when to use the tool: to re-enable a single disabled user. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions such as 'use micro_user_disable to disable' or 'use micro_users to list users,' so some routing is left to inference.

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