Zitadel MCP

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating it's a non-destructive, idempotent mutation. The description adds value by specifying it unlocks 'a previously locked user account,' clarifying the precondition, but doesn't mention side effects (e.g., user regains access), permissions required, or rate limits. 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, direct sentence with zero waste—it immediately states the tool's action and target. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with essential information, 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 mutation tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description is minimal but covers the core action. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, or broader context (e.g., how unlocking integrates with other user states), making it adequate but incomplete for full agent understanding.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'userId' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra 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 ('Unlock') and resource ('a previously locked user account'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'zitadel_lock_user' by specifying the opposite action, though it doesn't explicitly mention other user management tools like 'zitadel_deactivate_user' or 'zitadel_reactivate_user' for full differentiation.

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 specify prerequisites (e.g., the user must be locked first), exclusions (e.g., cannot unlock a deleted user), or compare to related tools like 'zitadel_reactivate_user' for deactivated users, leaving usage context unclear.

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