Activate or deactivate a user

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

Annotations only say idempotentHint=false, so the description carries the burden of behavior. It discloses that deactivation is non-destructive to content, blocks sign-in, is reversible, and needs a confirmation token. It does not mention what happens to existing sessions or what the confirm flow returns, but the core side effects are clear and consistent with the annotation.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the action, then add the most important side effect and the selection-vs-delete_user distinction. Every sentence earns its place.

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 low-complexity state toggle, this is nearly complete: the schema covers parameters fully, and the description covers effects and the main alternative. The only omission is the result of a successful call or an unconfirmed first call, but the schema's confirm_token note already fills in the workflow.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The tool description adds only the high-level 'on/off' framing and the token requirement, which does little beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 opens with a specific action, 'Switches an account on or off', and states the key effect: a deactivated account cannot sign in but keeps its pages and groups. It further distinguishes itself from delete_user by calling itself the reversible alternative, so an agent can separate it from the closest sibling.

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 gives an explicit routing signal: use this as the reversible alternative to delete_user, and the retention of pages/groups makes the trade-off concrete. This is direct when-to-use guidance relative to the obvious sibling without requiring schema inspection.

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