Zitadel MCP

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

Annotations cover key behavioral traits (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds minimal context by specifying 'previously deactivated,' but doesn't elaborate on effects like permission restoration or error conditions. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple parameter schema and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks details on output (no schema provided) and doesn't address potential errors or side effects, which could be helpful for a mutation tool despite the annotations.

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% for the single parameter 'userId,' with a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already documented, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 ('reactivate') and resource ('previously deactivated user account'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'zitadel_unlock_user' or 'zitadel_create_user', which could cause confusion about when to use each.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the user must be deactivated first), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like 'zitadel_deactivate_user' or 'zitadel_unlock_user', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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