suspend_devbox

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels. It clearly discloses that disk state is preserved while in-memory state is lost, and advises restarting background processes. This is non-obvious, valuable behavioral context.

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 concise and well-structured: a front-loaded purpose statement followed by a crucial caveat. It is two short sentences with no wasted words.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema), the description covers all key aspects: purpose, behavioral effects, and a practical follow-up instruction. No significant gaps remain.

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 devbox_id is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameter itself, so the baseline score of 3 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Suspend') and resource ('devbox'), and adds the crucial distinction 'preserving its disk state', which differentiates it from sibling tools like shutdown_devbox and resume_devbox. Purpose is 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?

The description implies when to use the tool by highlighting disk-state preservation, and provides a practical caveat about restarting background processes after resuming. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'when not to use', leaving a slight gap in explicit guidance.

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