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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses exactly what members retain (read and export), what gets blocked (every other action -> WORKSPACE_SUSPENDED), and the downstream call behavior (queued outbound canceled, inbound unanswered). This is unusually rich consequence disclosure for a mutation.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: permission and audience come first, then behavioral consequences. Every clause carries information. Slightly heavy as a single run-on sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so behavioral detail must live here, and it largely does. The only gap is that the two parameters remain undocumented beyond the parenthetical about the reason, which an agent could still resolve from the required fields.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning to 'reason' ('shown to its members'), but says nothing about workspaceId or the 3-500 char bound. Partial compensation for a 2-param tool lands at a baseline 3.

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+resource pair ('Suspend a workspace') and immediately scopes it to platform staff, which cleanly separates it from platform_workspaces_reactivate and platform_accounts_suspend. An agent can identify the operation from the first clause.

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 clear gating context: 'Platform staff only (account session)' and 'Requires manage'. This tells the agent who may invoke it and the required permission. It does not, however, explicitly name when to prefer this over reactivate or workspace delete, so alternatives are left to inference.

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