Unsuspend reseller user

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (non-destructive, idempotent, open-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the 403 refusal for non-reseller accounts and the runtime configuration constraint on MXROUTE_USERNAME that can make the tool unavailable. It does not discuss what state the account returns to or any rate limits, but for a simple idempotent restore this is solid added value with no contradiction of the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and free of filler; the eligibility constraints are compressed into the second sentence. The MXROUTE_USERNAME clause is dense and slightly opaque on first read, which keeps it just short of ideal, but no sentence is wasted.

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 state-change tool with annotations carrying the safety hints, the preconditions (reseller-only, config-form availability) are the main things an agent needs and they are present. Success return values are not described, but there is no output schema and this is a simple idempotent restore, so the omission is minor.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents `username` fully (including an example), so the baseline is 3. The description only reinforces that the username belongs to the reseller's user account, adding no syntax or format information beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Restores a suspended user account' — which directly names the state transition and makes it easy to distinguish from the sibling suspend_reseller_user, delete_reseller_user, and update_reseller_user. It also scopes the tool to reseller accounts, so an agent knows exactly which object class it acts on.

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?

It states a clear exclusion ('Reseller accounts only (regular accounts are refused, typically with 403)') and a configuration precondition (not available while MXROUTE_USERNAME is in `reseller|user` form), which is real when-not guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for regular accounts or explaining what an agent should do when it hits the 403, so it is clear but not fully prescriptive.

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