cipp_offboard_user

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds specific behavioral details: disabling account, revoking sessions, removing group memberships, and optional data transfer. It also states 'cannot be easily undone', reinforcing the irreversible nature beyond annotations.

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 plus a warning emoji, front-loaded with the destructive warning. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. 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?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers the actions and warning well but does not describe return values, success indicators, or error conditions. Adequate but not fully complete for an agent to anticipate the result.

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% and all parameters have clear descriptions. The description does not add new parameter-level information beyond mentioning 'optionally transferring data', which is already documented. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'offboards' and details the resource (user) and actions (disable, revoke sessions, remove group memberships, transfer data). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like cipp_disable_user by emphasizing irreversibility and comprehensive scope.

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 warns 'Confirm with the user before invoking' and marks as destructive, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cipp_disable_user for less severe offboarding. Implied usage context is present but no direct comparison.

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