Suspend Reseller User

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false; the description confirms the non-destructive semantics ("without deleting data") and adds real context beyond them — the reseller-authentication requirement and the 404-means-not-found behavior. Restating "repeating the call is harmless" largely duplicates idempotentHint, which keeps this from a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: effect and scope, idempotency, authentication context, and error semantics. The most decision-critical facts (what it does, what it does not destroy) are front-loaded with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the mutation's effect, safety profile, auth precondition, and the main error case. Minor gaps remain — nothing about whether existing sessions are terminated or how to reverse the suspension — but nothing required for a correct call is missing.

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 username parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds auth-context meaning (the value is paired with reseller-level, non-impersonated authentication) but no format or disambiguation detail beyond what the schema already carries.

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 and resource ("Suspends a reseller user") plus the effect ("blocking their access without deleting data"), which implicitly separates it from delete_reseller_user and unsuspend_reseller_user. It never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the routing rather than being told it.

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 invocation condition: call while authenticated as the reseller (plain reseller username), not while impersonating a user. That is exactly the kind of auth-context guidance that prevents failed calls. It stops short of naming the alternative tools (unsuspend_reseller_user for reversal, delete_reseller_user for removal), so when-not-to-use is only implied.

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