Snowflake Suspend Compute Pool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the cost rationale and the 'active' precondition, but does not disclose effects on running services, required privileges, or what happens if the pool is already suspended.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys purpose, target, and rationale efficiently.

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, idempotent mutation with an output schema and safety annotations, this is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and cost motivation but omits usage routing and parameter format, leaving gaps an agent would need for precise invocation.

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 0% for the single pool_name parameter. The description does not compensate by explaining identifier format, qualification rules, or expected value, so the agent gets no additional parameter meaning beyond the property name.

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 ('Suspend') and resource ('SPCS compute pool'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does and can distinguish it from sibling compute-pool tools. It stops short of naming what it is not (e.g., resume_compute_pool), so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 phrase 'to stop node provisioning costs' implies the usage context (cost optimization) and the word 'active' hints at a precondition. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as snowflake_resume_compute_pool or snowflake_suspend_warehouse.

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