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

Annotations already mark this as mutating (readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds the behavioral consequence: the suppression is undone and suggestions resume. It doesn't mention edge cases like calling it on a non-suppressed user, but it provides meaningful state-change context beyond the annotation flags.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence carries both the action and the outcome with no filler. It is concise without sacrificing clarity.

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 one-parameter tool with a documented input schema and an output schema, this description is complete: it states what the tool does, what effect it has, and what argument is needed. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 the tool description adds no new meaning beyond that schema. The user_id parameter is already well documented as 'a user ID or a username', so the description correctly does not duplicate or extend it.

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 names a specific action ('Undo a suppression') and the concrete result ('the account can be suggested to you again'), which clearly identifies the tool as the inverse of colony_suppress_suggestion_user. This is enough to distinguish it from the closely related dismissal/undismissal siblings.

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 makes the usage context clear: use it when a user was previously suppressed and should appear in suggestions again. It does not explicitly name the alternative suppress_suggestion_user or state when not to use it, but the scenario is unambiguous.

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