agent_suspend

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it says the Herdr workspace is closed, the native harness session ID is retained, and that legacy/unattributed sessions fail explicitly. It does not state permission requirements or explicitly confirm that the retained session ID makes the operation reversible (e.g. via agent_resume), so a small gap remains.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the action and mechanism before the usage condition and the sibling distinction. Dense technical jargon ('uniquely attributed native harness session ID') costs a little readability but every sentence carries information.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers mechanism, preconditions, failure modes, and sibling differentiation. The main omission is what the caller gets back or how to check the resulting state, which is minor given the low complexity.

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 coverage is 100% and the single agentId parameter is fully documented in the schema (including its pattern and that it comes from agent_start). The description adds no syntax, format, or ID-sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (suspend) applied to a specific resource (MCP-managed logical agent) and explains the mechanism (closing the dedicated Herdr workspace while retaining the native harness session ID). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling agent_stop, so an agent can route between them without opening either schema.

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 a concrete condition for use ('at a task/turn boundary to release runtime resources') and a precondition (agent must be idle or finished), plus an explicit exclusion ('legacy agents and sessions without verified native attribution fail clearly'). It also names the alternative tool agent_stop and the criterion that selects it.

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