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

The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description adds real behavior beyond them: the revocation scope of a suspend (sessions, API keys, agents), the refusal conditions that will return errors, and a required authentication mode (personal API key). It also implies that reactivation reverses a suspend, so the agent understands this is a soft, reversible operation, unlike remove_member.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effects, then the refusals and the auth prerequisite. Every clause carries information an agent needs, and nothing is padded.

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?

This is a destructive mutation with no output schema, and the description covers everything that matters: scope of the effect, reversibility, refusal conditions, and the authentication requirement. The remaining parameter-level detail (force) is fully covered in the schema, so nothing an agent needs before calling 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%: status, membership_id and force are all documented in the schema, including what force does. The description echoes the status semantics (suspend vs reactivate) but adds no detail about the escalation-path override, so it essentially restates what the schema already provides. Baseline 3.

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 precise verb and resource pair (suspend/reactivate a member) and spells out the concrete effect: signs them out everywhere and refuses sessions, API keys and agents. That is clearly distinguishable from sibling mutations like remove_member or set_team_members, which an agent could otherwise confuse it with.

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?

It gives the trigger conditions (suspend a member, or reactivate a suspended one) and states three exclusion cases: your own membership, the last active owner, and directory-managed members. It does not name the delete-forever alternative (remove_member), so the agent still has to infer that this is the reversible option, but the call context is otherwise clear.

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