Deactivate User

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context by specifying the impact: access is revoked and the operation is significant. This goes beyond the bare annotation and helps an agent understand the severity, though it does not address reversibility or side effects on related resources.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action and consequence are front-loaded, followed by a clear caution. Every sentence contributes value.

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 simple two-parameter destructive operation, the description plus annotations cover the action, severity, and parameter sourcing. The main gap is the lack of any statement about reversibility or what happens to the user's data after deactivation, but the destructive annotation and caution provide sufficient safety context.

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%, and both parameters already include useful detail about where to obtain them (fizzy_get_users, fizzy_get_identity, fizzy_get_accounts). The description itself adds no further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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 states a specific action ('Deactivate a user account') and a concrete consequence ('revoking their access'), making it clear this is the tool for deactivating a user. It reads distinctly from sibling tools like fizzy_get_user and fizzy_update_user, so an agent can identify its role without ambiguity.

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 to use caution and notes the operation is significant, but it does not say when to prefer this tool over alternatives, whether it is reversible, or what prerequisites might exist. There is no explicit guidance about when it should be used versus fizzy_update_user or other user-management tools.

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