cwp_account_suspend

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not say whether suspension is reversible, what happens to the account's sites/services during suspension, whether elevated permissions are required, or how the action is reported. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.

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?

A single five-word phrase with zero padding, and the action is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for what it says, though it is arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no behavioral detail, the definition is incomplete for an account-mutating tool. An agent cannot tell whether the call is reversible, idempotent, or what side effects to expect.

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% – both parameters, including the optional "reason", are documented in the input schema. The description adds nothing on top of that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ("Suspend") and resource ("CWP account"), which is clear enough to distinguish it from siblings like cwp_account_delete or cwp_account_unsuspend. However, it adds virtually no detail beyond what the tool name already conveys, so it sits at minimum viable rather than genuinely informative.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as cwp_account_delete (permanent removal) versus cwp_account_unsuspend (reversal). The agent must infer the intended context from the name alone.

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