warehouses_suspend_warehouseSuspend an active Snowflake virtual warehouse to stop compute usage and reduce costs. Use it when the warehouse is no longer needed for queries.
Suspend an active virtual warehouse to save compute costs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| warehouse_name | Yes | Quote names that aren't all uppercase, exactly as list tools return them. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Input schema / properties / warehouse_name / descriptionAdded value: +"Quote names that aren't all uppercase, exactly as list tools return them."v2.0.4Does 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 partly covered. The description adds the cost-saving intent but says nothing about the operationally important behavior for a warehouse: whether in-flight queries are killed, whether the warehouse must be idle, or how long the state transition takes.
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 the action and the reason; there is no filler or redundancy.
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 covers return values and annotations cover the mutation profile, but for a state-changing warehouse operation the missing piece is the effect on running work and on later resume; the description is adequate but not complete.
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 has 100% schema description coverage, including the non-obvious quoting rule for lowercase names. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the schema-driven baseline of 3 applies.
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 (active virtual warehouse) plus the rationale of saving compute costs. It is clear on its face, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling resume_warehouse or from compute_services_suspend_compute_pool, leaving that differentiation to the name.
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 word 'active' and the cost-saving rationale imply when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to call it (e.g., a warehouse running queries) and no reference to the resume_warehouse counterpart that would reverse it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.