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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the concrete effects of suspension (signs out everywhere, refuses sessions, API keys and agents), the refusal cases, and an auth requirement (personal API key). The reversible, idempotent nature implied matches idempotentHint=true and does not contradict destructiveHint=false.

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 tightly packed sentences, no filler. The primary action is front-loaded and the constraints and auth requirement follow in priority order.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers effects, refusal conditions, and the auth prerequisite an agent needs to attempt the call correctly. Nothing material is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents membership_id, status, and force with richer detail than the description. The description echoes the status semantics but adds nothing new for the parameters themselves; baseline 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?

States a specific verb pair (suspend/reactivate) on a specific resource (member), and the parenthetical spells out the effect of suspension. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like remove_member and list_members.

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?

Gives clear preconditions that select this tool's applicability (refused for your own membership, last active owner, directory-managed members) and the two legal status values. It does not explicitly route to a sibling like remove_member, so it stops short of full when-to-use/when-not guidance.

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