Snowflake Suspend Warehouse

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation and repeat-safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only that the target must be 'active' and the cost-saving purpose; it omits what happens to in-flight queries when the warehouse is suspended and whether this requires ownership/OPERATE privileges, which are the meaningful behavioral gaps left.

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 zero filler; the action and its rationale appear first. Nothing in the sentence is redundant or misplaced.

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-value explanation is not required, and annotations cover the safety/idempotency profile. What remains thin is operational context for a warehouse-mutating tool: effect on running queries and permission requirements. The definition is usable but leans heavily on structured fields.

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 warehouse_name parameter, so the description carries some burden. The name is largely self-describing, but the description adds no naming conventions, casing rules, or whether unqualified names resolve against the current context role/database.

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 (virtual warehouse) plus the outcome rationale (save compute costs), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not name or distinguish itself from plausible siblings such as snowflake_resume_warehouse or snowflake_drop_warehouse, but the verb itself makes the intent 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?

'To save compute costs' implies the motivation for suspending, which is a weak hint about when a caller would choose this over leaving a warehouse running. There is no explicit contrast with snowflake_resume_warehouse, snowflake_drop_warehouse, or snowflake_suspend_compute_pool, and no precondition guidance (e.g., that the warehouse must be active or must have no running queries).

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