cipp_disable_user

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is 'HIGH-IMPACT', 'blocks sign-in', and is reversible. This goes beyond what annotations provide, giving the agent clear expectations about the operation's nature and consequences.

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 exceptionally concise at two sentences, with the critical warning front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: the first warns of high impact, the second describes the effect and gives usage guidance.

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 has no output schema but annotations cover safety traits, the description provides sufficient context about impact and reversibility. It could mention what happens to active sessions or data, but for a disable action this is adequate. The sibling set further clarifies the tool's role.

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 coverage is 100%, with both 'userId' and 'tenantFilter' described in the input schema. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's action ('Disables a user account, blocking sign-in'). It specifies the resource (user account) and the verb (disable), and the sibling list includes other user-related actions like cipp_create_user and cipp_offboard_user, making the purpose distinct.

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 includes explicit usage guidance: 'Reversible by re-enabling the account. Confirm with the user before invoking.' It tells the agent to confirm with the user and notes reversibility, but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives.

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