conduyt_deactivate_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the reversible/soft nature of the operation, the concrete consequence (cannot sign in), the side effect on open records, and the required users:deactivate permission. It stops short of stating what happens to records when reassignTo is omitted, or how the change can be undone.

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, each earning its place: action and effect first, the optional parameter behavior second, the permission requirement last. No filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, effect, side effects, and the authorization requirement. The remaining gap is the behavior when reassignTo is omitted (records remain with the deactivated user vs become orphaned), which matters for a mutation of this kind.

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 both parameters are already documented; baseline is 3. The description only adds the qualifier that reassignment applies to 'open records', which is a marginal gain over the schema wording.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('Deactivate (soft-disable) a team member') with the parenthetical clarifying that this is a soft disable rather than a delete, which usefully separates it from destructive siblings. It does not name the closest relative, conduyt_reactivate_user, or any other alternative, so it falls short of full sibling 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?

The effect ('so they can no longer sign in') makes the intended use case reasonably clear, and 'optionally reassign' signals when the second parameter applies. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. use conduyt_reactivate_user to reverse, or that this is not a substitute for deleting a user), leaving the agent to infer.

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