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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds real context beyond them: access is lost immediately, the person remains a member, the change is reversible via reactivate_member, and a confirmation-token gating flow is required. That is exactly the behavioral disclosure a mutation tool needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the effect and the sibling relation, then prerequisites and the confirmation procedure. Every sentence carries an actionable fact, though the confirmation instructions are dense enough that the passage runs long for a single-sentence-per-idea structure.

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 destructive, permission-gated mutation with an output schema present, the description supplies the side effects, the reversibility path, the required role, and the pre-flight confirmation workflow. An agent has everything needed to call it safely and 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 coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the two riskiest parameters: memberId is defined as the id from list_members rather than the user id, and confirmationToken's acquisition procedure is spelled out. organizationId is left undocumented and requestId is only covered by the schema itself, so it is not fully complete, but the ambiguity that would cause a wrong call is removed.

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 and resource ("Suspend an organization member") and immediately names the sibling that reverses it (reactivate_member), so the agent can distinguish it from change_member_role, remove/invite, and archive operations without opening a 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?

Gives explicit prerequisites (organization:manage permission plus owner role) and a mandatory procedure: call preview_operation with tool "suspend_member" and these arguments, show the plan to the user, and only proceed after explicit agreement. It also names the alternative for undoing the action. Nothing is left to inference.

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