ad_unlock_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does correctly signal a mutating operation via the [WRITE] tag, which is valuable, but it reveals nothing about reversibility, required privileges, lockout counter reset behavior, or the presence of safety mechanisms like dry_run and confirmation_token.

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 single fragment is efficient and front-loaded with no wasted words, but its brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision. The [Users]/[WRITE] tagging is a useful structural convention that lets the agent parse domain and mutation type at a glance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a four-parameter write operation with no annotations, the description omits parameter guidance, permissions, and any mention of the dry-run/confirmation workflow — significant gaps an agent must resolve before invoking it safely.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. Only 'identity' is loosely implied by 'conta' (account); the semantics of dry_run and confirmation_token — both clearly safety-relevant — are left entirely unexplained.

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 verb and resource ('Desbloquear conta' = unlock account), and the bracketed tags [Users] [WRITE] classify both the object domain and the mutation type. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like ad_enable_user or ad_reset_user_password.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ad_enable_user (re-enable a disabled account) or ad_reset_user_password, nor any prerequisites like required permissions or the fact that a locked-out account must exist. The agent must infer all routing context from the tool name alone.

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