suspend_carrier_subscriber

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the mutation gate ('confirm must be true to apply the change') and preview capability ('dry_run: preview without applying'), which go beyond the schema defaults. However, it omits permissions needed, the effect of suspension on the subscriber's service, and reversibility (the resume sibling implies it, but it is not stated).

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 purpose is front-loaded and the Args list is scannable with zero wasted prose. The 'Returns' line is redundant given an output schema exists, and the phantom 'settings' entry adds noise, but the overall structure is tight.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and low schema coverage, the description covers the critical confirm/dry_run gating well and the return type is available via output schema. It still leaves out permissions/authorization and the practical effect of a suspension, and the parameter list is not fully accurate.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain subscriber_id, reason, confirm, and dry_run semantics. It is undermined, however, by listing a 'settings' parameter that does not exist in the schema while omitting 'controller' (partially covered by the schema's own description). Net value is added but with a factual defect.

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 opening line states a specific verb and resource ('Suspend a UniFi Carrier Fabric subscriber'), which is inherently distinguishable from siblings like resume_carrier_subscriber, create_carrier_subscriber, and update_carrier_subscriber. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

There is no guidance on when to suspend versus resume, update, or detach this subscriber, nor any stated preconditions. The only contextual hints are the confirm/dry_run mechanics, which are operational rather than tool-selection guidance.

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