aism_user_quarantine

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

With destructiveHint=true already declared, the description adds substantial non-redundant context: roles are saved then removed, sessions signed out, application passwords deleted, password randomized, logins and resets blocked. It also discloses the permission prerequisites (users:write plus promote_users/edit_user) and a minimum companion version, which annotations cannot convey.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the definition, then guardrails, then prerequisites. The long effect list is dense but every clause carries distinct behavioral information; nothing is padding.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers effects, preconditions, permission requirements, and reversibility ('until restored'). The only gap is that it doesn't address idempotency or what happens on a repeat call, and it leaves the restoration tool unnamed.

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% and the schema documents both 'site' and 'reason', so the baseline applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all – it never mentions the target id, the site selector, or the purpose of the stored reason note, so it neither helps nor compensates for the coverage gap.

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 verb+resource pair ('Lock a suspicious account without deleting it') and then enumerates exactly what happens to the account. This makes it immediately distinguishable from the sibling aism_user_restore, which the phrase 'until restored' implicitly contrasts with.

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 states a clear usage constraint ('Use only on accounts the operator asked to disable') and two hard exclusions ('Refuses the key owner and the last active administrator'). It stops short of explicitly naming aism_user_restore as the undo path, so the alternative is only implied.

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