Zitadel MCP

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

Annotations already indicate this is a destructive, non-read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the behavioral consequence ('The user will no longer be able to log in') and the confirm requirement for execution, which clarifies the tool's safety mechanism and user impact.

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 front-loaded with the core action and consequence, followed by a concise prerequisite. Both sentences are essential—the first defines the tool's purpose and effect, and the second specifies a critical usage requirement—with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive user management), rich annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It covers the action, consequence, and a key parameter behavior. However, without an output schema, it does not describe return values or error conditions, leaving a minor gap.

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 the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds some meaning by explaining the purpose of 'confirm' ('Must be true to execute. Omit to preview the action.'), but this is partially redundant with the schema's description. It does not provide additional context for 'userId' beyond what the schema states.

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 specific action ('deactivate a user account') and the resource ('user'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'delete_user', 'lock_user', and 'reactivate_user' by specifying the user will no longer be able to log in, which is a distinct state change.

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 clear context for when to use it (to deactivate a user account so they can't log in) and includes a prerequisite ('Requires confirm: true'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like 'delete_user' or 'lock_user' for different scenarios.

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