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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that pre-issued tokens stop working on the next request, that nothing is deleted or detached, that lent connector accounts and keys fail with a named `lender_suspended` error, and that resume is the only revival path. Permission requirements and blast radius are both spelled out.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence adds operational information (token invalidation, seat retention, lender suspension, permissions). It is dense — a single long paragraph with arrows and capitalization for emphasis — which costs some readability but not enough to justify trimming.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers effects, permissions, and error surface unusually well. The remaining gaps are the undocumented `_org` parameter and the mismatch about whether `reason` is required.

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?

Adds real meaning beyond the 0%-covered schema for `target` ('the account's sub — NOT an email') and maps the `op` enum to concrete behaviors. However, it says '`reason` required' while the schema lists only op and target as required with reason defaulting to null — a direct inconsistency — and the `_org` parameter is never mentioned at all.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Pause an account without deleting anything') and immediately distinguishes the operation from deletion. The two enum modes are each named and described (op=suspend, op=resume), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does before reading any schema.

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?

Explicitly states who may call it ('Super platform admin on anyone; a tenant admin on accounts of their OWN tenant'), and names the alternative for the adjacent case: 'to act on ONE org only, remove the member with oto_admin_org_member.' It also excludes a wrong mental model ('Not an org admin: an account is not owned by an org').

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