snowflake_suspend_compute_pool

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states the action and cost motivation, but does not disclose whether the suspension is reversible, impacts running services, requires special permissions, or what happens if the pool is already suspended. No side effects or state changes are described.

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?

One concise sentence with zero fluff. The action and purpose are front-loaded, and every word adds value. No unnecessary details or repetition.

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 suspend operation with one parameter, the description covers the primary intent, but lacks information on edge cases (idempotency, error conditions, return value) and does not clarify what constitutes an 'active' pool. Given an output schema exists, the response format may be documented there, but the description alone is only minimally complete for an agent to act reliably.

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?

The single parameter 'pool_name' is self-explanatory from its name and the tool context, but the schema provides no description (0% coverage) and the description does not elaborate on the expected format (e.g., full name vs. simple name, case sensitivity). The parameter's purpose is implicitly clear, so a mid score 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?

States a specific action ('Suspend') on a specific resource ('SPCS compute pool') with an explicit goal ('to stop node provisioning costs'). It is distinct from sibling tools like resume_compute_pool, but doesn't explicitly name the alternative or differentiate beyond the verb. Still, the purpose is clear and unambiguous.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No mention of preconditions (e.g., pool must be running) or exclusions. The description only implies usage to cut costs, but does not state when not to use it or when a different operation (e.g., drop, resize) would be appropriate.

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