Suspend service

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating, potentially destructive operation. The description adds that suspension may also affect the server/module via `use_module`, which is valuable context. However, it does not explain side effects like what happens to the service, whether it's reversible, or any permissions required.

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 a single sentence plus a parenthetical, which is concise and front-loads the core action. It doesn't waste words, though it could arguably be even more compact. The structure is adequate.

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 moderate complexity (4 params, one required) and that it's a destructive action, the description plus annotations cover the basics. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what the return value indicates (e.g., success/failure), which could be important for the agent to confirm the operation succeeded. Also, no guidance on edge cases like suspending an already suspended service.

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 75%, and the schema provides good descriptions for reason, staff_id, and use_module. The description adds the crucial conditional behavior tied to `use_module`, which is not fully explicit in the schema. However, service_id has no description in the schema, and the description does not clarify it either, leaving a minor gap.

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 'Suspend' and the resource 'service', and it distinguishes the additional behavior when `use_module` is true. It also names the underlying method it wraps, which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'unsuspend_service', though the opposite action is obvious from the name.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to suspend a service, and includes the nuance about the module suspension. However, there is no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it, nor does it mention prerequisites such as whether the service must exist or be active. It does not mention that 'unsuspend_service' is the alternative for reversing the action.

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