Suspend cards

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

Annotations already declare idempotent, non-destructive, non-read-only behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: it discloses reversibility and, importantly, the return-value semantics (true if at least one card was not already suspended, false otherwise), which is genuine behavioral context not present in 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, followed by the return contract. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

With one required parameter, full schema coverage, and explicit annotations, the description covers purpose, reversibility, and the return value despite there being no output schema. It could go slightly further on batch edge cases (invalid or unknown card IDs), but nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself already warns that these are card IDs rather than note IDs and points to find_cards/notes_info. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Suspends cards") plus the concrete effect ("not shown in reviews"), which immediately separates it from sibling tools like unsuspend and are_suspended.

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?

Usage is implied by the stated effect and the parenthetical pointer to unsuspend for reversal, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any routing advice versus sibling tools such as are_suspended or change_deck.

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