SailPoint MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'disable' implies a state-changing operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, whether the action is reversible (though 'enable_account' exists), what happens to associated resources, or any rate limits/constraints. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 description is extremely concise at just four words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted words. Every element ('Disable', 'an active account') earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 potentially destructive account management tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'disable' means operationally, whether data is preserved, what permissions are required, or what the expected outcome is. Given the complexity of account state changes and the lack of structured metadata, more context is needed.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage with the single parameter 'id' clearly documented as 'The account ID to disable.' The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 clearly states the action ('Disable') and target ('an active account'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'unlock_account' or explain what 'disable' means versus other account state changes like locking or deleting.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'unlock_account' or 'enable_account' (which appears to be its opposite). There's no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or typical use cases for disabling versus other account management operations.

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