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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the write/mutating nature is known. The description adds non-obvious context the annotations cannot convey: the block only takes effect when write-back is enabled, and the action is reversible via restore_user. What is missing is whether existing sessions or data are affected and whether repeat calls are idempotent.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, with the effect in parentheses and the recovery path last. No filler, and every clause carries information the agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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 mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented schema, the description supplies the key facts: the conditional write-back behavior and the reversible counterpart. Residual gaps are minor, mainly error/edge-case behavior such as suspending an already-suspended user.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about user_id — the schema already explains that both the app id and the VibeAdmin id from list_users are accepted.

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 pairs a specific verb with a specific resource ("Suspend a user") and explains the concrete effect — blocking the user in the customer's app — plus names the inverse operation, restore_user. It separates itself cleanly from restore_user, though it does not distinguish itself from other user-mutating siblings such as change_user_role or update_user_metadata.

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 mention of "Reversible with restore_user" implies the paired workflow and tells the agent an undo path exists, which is genuine usage context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to suspend versus when to use a lighter-weight alternative like set_flag or change_user_role, and no prerequisites or warnings are given.

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