Suspend a member

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

Although annotations already mark this as destructive, the description adds important behavioral context: access is revoked immediately, membership is retained, reactivation is possible via reactivate_member, and the operation requires the organization:manage permission plus the owner role. It also discloses the mandatory confirmation-token workflow, which is not captured by annotations.

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 front-loaded with the effect of suspension, then moves through parameter clarification, confirmation workflow, and permissions. Every sentence adds actionable information, with no filler.

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 destructive, permission-gated mutation with no output schema and low schema description coverage, the description is complete enough to call correctly. It covers the effect, reversibility, parameter source, confirmation-token prerequisite, and authorization requirements.

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 25%, so the description carries substantial weight. It explains that memberId is the member id from list_members rather than a user id and fully documents the confirmationToken workflow; requestId is covered by the schema itself. organizationId is left implicit, which is a minor gap given the otherwise strong parameter guidance.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Suspend an organization member') and immediately explains the consequence: access is lost immediately but membership remains. It also distinguishes the operation from its sibling reactivate_member, so an agent can identify the tool's role 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?

The description explicitly requires calling preview_operation first with the same arguments, showing the plan to the user, and only invoking suspend_member after explicit agreement. It also names the inverse operation reactivate_member and clarifies that memberId must come from list_members rather than being a user id.

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