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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the blast radius (active sessions and API keys stop working), the user-visible effect (sign-in refused), and reversibility ('until reactivated'). It omits whether the action is audited, whether the reason is recorded, and whether underlying data is retained or deleted.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the access gate and requirement, then the effect, then the hard constraints. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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, reversible mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers authorization, effect, and exclusions well. The one real gap is parameter guidance, which matters because both parameters are required and the reason field's purpose is never explained.

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 0% and the description says nothing about either parameter. It never explains that accountId is a UUID identifying the target (or that 'yourself' must be excluded), nor that reason is a required 3-500 character justification, likely used for audit. For a low-coverage schema the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Suspend an account') and states the concrete operational effect (sessions and API keys stop working, sign-in refused), which distinguishes it from the similarly-named account_delete sibling by making clear this is reversible. It never names the sibling that reverses it (platform_accounts_reactivate) or other platform_accounts_* tools, so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

Clear authorization context ('Platform staff only (account session)', 'Requires manage') plus two explicit exclusions: you cannot suspend yourself or a platform owner. That is strong when-to-use/when-not guidance, though it does not name a preferred alternative or state what to do instead in the excluded cases.

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