snowflake_suspend_warehouse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that it suspends an 'active' warehouse, implying a state change, and mentions the cost-saving effect. However, it does not disclose side effects such as impact on running queries, whether it is idempotent, required permissions, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a state-changing operation.

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, concise sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the action and purpose. While it is under-specified, it earns its place without redundancy. The structure is efficient, though it lacks any additional useful details.

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?

Given that this is a state-changing operation with no annotations and a single parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the warehouse must exist), consequences for running queries, error handling, or what happens if the warehouse is already suspended. The output schema exists but is not shown; regardless, the description omits essential operational context.

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%, so the description must explain the parameter. It only implies that `warehouse_name` is the name of the warehouse to suspend, but gives no details about format, uniqueness, or validation. The description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 identifies the verb 'suspend' and the resource 'active virtual warehouse', and states the purpose of saving compute costs. It is distinct from siblings like resume or resize, though it does not explicitly reference them. The phrase 'active' adds a condition, making the action scope clear.

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 purpose 'to save compute costs' implies when to use this tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., vs. dropping a warehouse) or any alternatives mentioned. The context is implied rather than stated, so it meets the 'implied usage' bar but lacks exclusions or directional advice.

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