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

The description richly discloses behavior beyond the annotations: role removal, deletion of ALL tokens, 403 account_suspended response, and no notification. However, this directly conflicts with destructiveHint=false, since deleting all tokens and revoking a role is a destructive update. Per the annotation contradiction rule, this scores 1.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the verb and effects, and most sentences carry useful behavioral detail. The trailing EN keyword list is useful for search but slightly redundant.

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?

It covers key effects, exclusions, reversibility, and notification behavior, which is substantial for a mutation tool with no output schema. It still does not describe the tool's return value or success shape.

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 100%, and the schema already documents profile_id and the optional reason parameter. The description adds little parameter-specific semantics beyond clarifying that no message is sent and the reason is internal, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: suspending a managed account, with exact effects on role and tokens. It explicitly names the reverse tool ontouser_team_unsuspend, so it is distinguishable from its sibling.

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 usage constraints: admin accounts are excluded, self-suspension is impossible, no message is sent, and unsuspend is the reverse operation. It does not explicitly contrast with related siblings such as offboard or remove_member.

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