iaas_suspend_machine

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds only the raw POST endpoint and does not explain what "suspend" does to guest state (paused vs powered off, memory retained?), how it is reversed, or whether in-flight workloads are affected — the exact context an agent needs for a non-idempotent mutation.

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 dominated by a duplicated, near-verbatim line ("Suspend operation for machine" / "Second day suspend operation for machine") and a bare endpoint URL. It is short but wasted, and the useful information — what suspending means — is absent.

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?

This is a non-idempotent, non-destructive state-changing operation with no output schema and a crowded set of power-state siblings. The definition omits reversibility, resulting machine state, permission needs, and error behavior, leaving the agent unable to predict consequences or verify success.

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%, so both the machine id and apiVersion are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the id via the '{id}' path template and adds nothing about id format or version-negotiation behavior, 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?

The first line names a verb and resource ("Suspend operation for machine"), so the basic intent is recoverable, but it gives no clue how suspend differs from the many adjacent siblings such as iaas_shutdown_machine, iaas_power_off_machine, and iaas_reset_machine. The second line ("Second day suspend operation for machine") is garbled and adds confusion rather than discrimination.

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 statement of when to use this versus shutdown/power-off/restart, no prerequisites, and no exclusion of the already-suspended case. The agent has to infer everything about tool selection from the name alone.

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