Zitadel MCP

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: it explains the consequence ('user will not be able to log in until unlocked') and the confirm parameter's role in execution vs. preview. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first sentence states the purpose and effect, and the second specifies the confirm requirement. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a destructive action tool.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, effect, and a key parameter requirement. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, potential errors, or return values, which would be helpful given the tool's complexity.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the confirm parameter's requirement, but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already states (e.g., format of userId or implications of confirm).

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 verb ('Lock') and resource ('user account'), specifies the effect ('will not be able to log in until unlocked'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'zitadel_unlock_user' and 'zitadel_deactivate_user' by focusing on locking functionality.

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 this tool (to lock a user account) and includes a prerequisite ('Requires confirm: true'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'zitadel_deactivate_user' for comparison.

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