suspend user

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

Annotations already establish destructive and idempotent behavior, so the description is not fully responsible for safety disclosure. It adds some useful context by stating that the user's services are also suspended and that a verified underlying command is executed, but it does not explain side effects or reversibility beyond that.

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 primary action. The second sentence about executing v-suspend-user adds minimal value but is not verbose enough to significantly hurt clarity.

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 operation with three parameters, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter-level semantics, especially the restart option, and does not tell the agent how to confirm or what effects the suspension has beyond 'their services.'

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 33%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the parameters. In particular, the meaning of 'restart' is left entirely to inference, and the description only loosely maps to the 'user' parameter.

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 states a clear verb and resource: suspends a user and their services. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like delete_user or unsuspend_user, but the verb 'suspend' conveys a distinct action from deletion or reactivation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and the confirm flag, rather than stated explicitly.

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