Suspend groups

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: the meaning of ON/OFF (individual member editing), the fact that connector edit tools already cover groups, and the return shape {suspendGroups, changed}. It does not, however, explain why the annotation marks this as destructiveHint=true for what reads like a mode toggle, which is the one open behavioral question.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then usage guidance, then the return contract. Every sentence carries information; nothing is padding.

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 one-optional-parameter mode toggle with no output schema, the description supplies purpose, when-to-use, the read-only path, and the return fields. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 100% and the single parameter's true/false/omit semantics are fully documented in the schema. The description's 'Omit suspend to just read the state' restates the schema rather than adding syntax or format detail, so the baseline 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 pair (reads or switches) plus the exact resource, Archicad's 'Suspend Groups' mode, and locates it in the UI (Edit > Grouping). An agent can immediately distinguish it from sibling element tools like group_elements or lock_elements.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative mechanism (the edit tools handle groups via includeGroupMembers) and states the condition under which this tool is unnecessary ('only needed for manual workflows'), plus the read vs write trigger ('Omit suspend to just read the state'). Nothing is left to inference.

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