manage_identity_protection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It provides useful action-specific details, such as confirm=True for delete_auth_method and the body structure for dismiss_risky_user/confirm_compromised, but it does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, or irreversibility of mutation actions. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 highly structured with a clear purpose line followed by a concise action list. Each line is short and includes the relevant parameters, avoiding redundancy. The format is easy to parse and front-loads the most critical information.

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 tool is complex with 10 actions, but the description covers all actions and links parameters to each. Some actions like get_risk_detections only say 'Get risk detection events' without noting applicable parameters, but the output schema covers return values. Overall, the description is reasonably complete for the tool's size, though minor gaps remain.

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, and it does: it explains the action parameter values and shows how parameters like user_id, method_id, filter_query, and body are used per action. It does not define every parameter globally (e.g., top is only mentioned in log actions), but it adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 it manages identity protection, authentication methods, sign-in logs, and risky users. The action list gives concrete sub-operations, making the tool's scope unambiguous. However, 'manage' is a broad verb and it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like manage_entra_users or manage_conditional_access, so it doesn't fully capitalize on differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by the action list: use this tool for identity protection tasks like auth methods, sign-in logs, and risky users. The description does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools, nor does it mention exclusions. Given the lack of explicit alternatives, the guidance is adequate but not strong.

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