cwp_account_unsuspend

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the mutation but not whether the action is idempotent, what side effects occur (quota/service restoration), what permissions are required, or what is returned.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, appropriate for a single-parameter mutation. Its only shortfall is that concision here shades into under-specification rather than deliberate brevity.

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 trivial one-param tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this is minimally adequate, but a mutation with zero annotations should at least disclose required permissions or post-condition state.

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?

The single parameter's schema description already explains it fully (100% coverage), so the description adds nothing beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the documentation work.

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?

Specific verb ('Unsuspend') plus resource ('CWP account'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the sibling cwp_account_suspend. It doesn't explicitly name that sibling as the inverse, but the polarity of the verb plus the sibling list makes the distinction obvious.

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?

No guidance on when this should be used versus cwp_account_update or cwp_account_suspend, no prerequisites (e.g., admin rights, current suspended state), and no note about what happens if the account is not suspended.

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