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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the resulting state (member role returned, login with existing password), which tells the agent what the mutation actually restores. It stops short of stating permission requirements or failure modes.

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?

One compact sentence states the action and effect up front, followed by a short keyword line — no waste, and the essential meaning is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive, idempotent tool with no output schema, the description plus annotations give everything needed to call it correctly. Only the precondition (account is currently suspended) and the return shape are unstated.

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 single required profile_id is documented in the schema, including its source (ontouser_team_index). The description adds no further parameter detail, so the schema carries the load.

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?

Names a specific verb (Sperre aufheben / unsuspend) and resource (verwaltetes Konto) and states the concrete outcome: the member role is restored and the account can log in with its existing password. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling ontouser_team_suspend.

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?

The undo-of-suspend semantics imply when to use it, and the English keyword line lists synonyms (unsuspend, unblock, restore access) that help matching. However, it never explicitly says when not to use it or points to a prerequisite such as confirming the account is currently suspended.

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