unsuspend_user

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it is a WRITE operation and updates data, which is consistent but not additional. It mentions the HTTP method and endpoint but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or other behavioral details beyond what annotations imply. No contradictions.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose, starting with 'Unsuspend a user'. However, it contains slight redundancy: the header line repeats 'Unsuspend a user' and the first sentence restates it. Overall, it is concise but could be slightly tighter.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequately complete. It states the input (id), action (unsuspend), and output (the unsuspended User resource). The annotations provide safety context. It could mention idempotency or prerequisites, but overall it covers the necessary information.

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 schema covers the single parameter 'id' with a description ('User id or email (encoded string)'), achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add further semantic meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Unsuspend' and the resource 'user', directly indicating the action. It distinguishes from the sibling 'suspend_user' by specifying the opposite operation. The purpose is explicitly defined with no ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a user is already active or prerequisites like the user must be suspended first. Despite having a clear sibling 'suspend_user', no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are given.

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