suspend_user

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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing server-side auth injection, throttling under the 30-per-10s cap, retries on 429/5xx, return format (HTTP status plus JSON body), and detailed error mapping for 401/403/404/422. The inaccurate 'replaces the fields you send' statement for a suspend operation is a notable blemish, but the overall behavioral disclosure is rich and useful.

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 a method badge and purpose, then organized into labeled sections. However, it contains generic update-tool boilerplate ('replaces the fields you send', 'Read it first so you overwrite just the fields you mean to') that is irrelevant and potentially misleading for suspend_user, so not every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given a minimal schema and no output schema, the description covers the full call experience: endpoint, idempotency, auth, rate limiting, retry behavior, return payload, and error statuses. It also provides usage context and related tools. The mismatched 'replace fields' text is the main reason it is not a 5.

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?

The input schema already covers the only parameter (id) with a description ('User id or email (encoded string)'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no further parameter-level meaning; it only restates the operation itself.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Suspends a user from loging in or creating another account.' This inherently differentiates it from the sibling unsuspend_user and other user-related tools. The additional update boilerplate adds some noise, but the core purpose is unmistakable.

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?

Provides an explicit 'Use when' condition ('only when the user asked to change an existing record'), advises reading the record first, and points to the create tool if the record doesn't exist. It also lists related Users tools. However, the 'overwrite just the fields you mean to' guidance is mismatched with suspend_user's single-id schema, making part of the guidance off-target.

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