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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the auth requirement ('Platform staff only', 'Requires manage') and a subtle side-effect ('Calls canceled during the suspension stay canceled'). It does not state whether reactivation is idempotent or what happens if the workspace is not suspended.

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?

Four short, front-loaded clauses with no waste: permission gate, action, and critical side-effect all stated compactly.

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 single-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: access control and the non-reversible cancellation side-effect. It leaves minor gaps around idempotency and preconditions.

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 0% and only one parameter (workspaceId) exists, but the schema already specifies its uuid format and pattern. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name, matching the baseline for a zero-information single-param tool.

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 ('Lift a workspace suspension') and resource ('workspace suspension'), and names its inverse sibling platform_workspaces_suspend implicitly. An agent can tell this reverses a suspension without opening the 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?

Explicitly scopes the caller to 'Platform staff only (account session). Requires manage', which is a clear precondition. However, it does not name when to prefer this over sibling tools like platform_accounts_reactivate or state that the workspace must currently be suspended.

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