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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the scope of changeable fields but says nothing about permission requirements, whether an update is a merge or a replace, or what happens when only id is passed — gaps the annotations don't fill.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler and no repetition of the title. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves no room for the routing or behavioral context the tool actually needs.

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 mutation tool with an undocumented half of its schema and no output schema, the description should say more: whether unspecified fields are untouched, whether the id can be an email address (only the schema says this), and what the update returns or affects. As written, the agent must infer all of it.

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?

At 50% schema coverage, id and keep_until are documented while type and reason are bare. The description at least names type and reason as the fields being changed, which marginally compensates, but it adds no semantics for the enum values or what reason is used for, so it stays at the baseline.

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 verb ("Change") plus the resource ("suppression") and enumerates the mutable fields (type, reason, expiry), so an agent can distinguish it from create-suppression, get-suppression, and delete-suppression without opening a schema. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this vs. create-suppression or delete-suppression, no prerequisites, and no note on what to do when only the required id is supplied. The mutating verb implies the use case, but nothing routes the agent between this tool and its siblings.

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