users_suspend

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Suspend (disable)' without revealing side effects such as whether the user loses access immediately, whether it is reversible, or what happens to sessions and data. The description adds no context beyond the tool name's literal meaning.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately readable and efficient.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the essential action. However, it omits important context such as verification on whether the account can be reactivated, or any side effects a user might face. The presence of users_activate in sibling tools suggests that noting reversibility would complete the picture.

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%: the single parameter 'id' is already described as 'User ID to suspend'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Suspend') and the resource ('a user account'), with a parenthetical clarification ('disable') that adds precision. It distinguishes from sibling tools like users_delete (permanent removal) and users_activate (opposite action).

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 is provided on when to use suspend versus alternatives like users_delete or groups_remove_user. The description implies a disabling action but does not state prerequisites, reversibility, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. Given the availability of users_activate as a potential counterpart, explicit contrast would be valuable.

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