Reactivates a previously deactivated team member by user UUID, restoring their access to the Conduyt account.
Reactivate a previously deactivated team member, restoring their access.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | User UUID to reactivate |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.71.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key effect ('restoring their access'), which goes beyond the name. But it says nothing about permission/admin requirements, error behavior if the user is already active, idempotency, or whether notifications/invites are re-sent.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with the verb and effect stated immediately and zero wasted words. Size is proportional to the tool's simplicity.
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 one-parameter state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does but not the operational context an agent needs — required privileges, failure modes, or what is returned. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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?
There is a single parameter (id), and schema coverage is 100% with the description 'User UUID to reactivate' — the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 pairs a specific verb ('Reactivate') with a specific resource ('a previously deactivated team member') and states the effect ('restoring their access'). It is clearly distinguishable from reverse-direction siblings like conduyt_deactivate_user, though it does not name them explicitly.
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 phrase 'previously deactivated' implies a precondition (the user must currently be deactivated), which is useful implicit usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over conduyt_update_user or other user-state tools, nor any stated exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.