suppress_mate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the mate is not removed but retained in the tree, that the operation is reversible, and what the return value reports. It does not mention permissions or error conditions, but the core behavioral profile is conveyed.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and its side effect, followed by the restore path. No wasted words and the parameter semantics are stated inline.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the effect, reversibility, and return value, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is how to specify/identify the mate by name and any failure modes.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the `suppress` boolean precisely (true suppresses, false restores), which the bare schema does not. The required `name` parameter is left entirely undefined — no format or identification guidance for the mate — so coverage is only partial.

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 names a specific verb+resource (suppress a mate) and immediately explains the effect: it stops holding its components while staying in the tree, which distinguishes it from delete_mate and suppress_feature. It also covers the inverse operation, so the agent understands this is a reversible toggle rather than a one-way action.

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 toggle semantics (default suppress, suppress=False to restore) are spelled out, so the usage is implied and clear for the common case. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., delete_mate for permanent removal), leaving routing to inference.

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