panelica_ssh_users_post_v1_ssh_users_id_unsuspend

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'Mutating: changes server state' and adds an auth requirement 'Required scopes: accounts:write'. It does not describe deeper behavioral details such as what changes on the user account, but the scope and explicit mutation flag provide useful context beyond 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the action, followed by endpoint, category, scopes, and mutation flag. 'Category: SSH Users' is redundant with the tool's namespace, but the overall length is appropriate and each other line adds some 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 straightforward unsuspend action with no output schema, the description covers the HTTP method, scopes, and mutating nature, which is largely sufficient. However, the body parameter is intentionally underspecified in the schema and the description does not clarify whether a request body is expected or what it should contain, which could confuse an agent.

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% nominally, with id documented as 'Path parameter: id' and body described only as 'Request body (application/json). Schema not statically declared — see API docs.' The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the agent is left with the schema's minimal guidance. Baseline 3 applies since both parameters have some description.

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 'Unsuspend SSH user', a specific verb and resource, and includes the exact HTTP endpoint 'POST /v1/ssh-users/:id/unsuspend'. This is clear and distinct from the sibling 'panelica_ssh_users_post_v1_ssh_users_id_suspend', though it does not explicitly contrast the two actions.

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?

The description implies the tool is for re-enabling a suspended SSH user, and the 'Mutating: changes server state' line signals side effects. However, it does not state when to choose this over the suspend tool or other SSH-user operations, nor does it offer any alternative-routing guidance.

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