suspend_carrier_subscriber

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the guarded-write sequence (read-before, no-op when already suspended, confirm=true, write kill-switch, read-after), states that the tool is not testable against live hardware, and mentions that an optional reason is recorded on the subscriber. This goes well beyond a simple mutating action and gives the agent a realistic model of side effects and safety mechanisms.

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 fairly long but every sentence earns its place: the action and endpoint are front-loaded, the guarded-write explanation is dense, and parameter guidance follows. The only minor redundancy is repeating the guarded-write pattern in slightly different phrasing, but overall it is well organized and avoids fluff.

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 four parameters, one required, and an output schema present, the description covers the essential inputs and behavioral guardrails. It does not describe return values or error cases, but the output schema can handle that. The warnings about hermetic testing and no-op behavior add necessary context for a state-changing tool. Minor gaps: no mention of idempotency for the confirm parameter or expected response codes, but the overall context is sufficient.

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 0%, but the description fully documents each parameter: subscriber_id is sourced from list_carrier_subscribers, reason is optional free-text, confirm must be true to apply the change, and key_label is an optional API-key label for routing. This adds meaningful operational context far beyond the raw schema types and defaults, and even explains the source of the ID.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Suspend a subscriber's service," which clearly identifies the action. It also includes the endpoint path and names the key parameters, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like resume_carrier_subscriber, though the action itself is self-explanatory.

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 rich context about the guarded-write procedure (read-before, no-op when already suspended, confirm=true, write kill-switch, read-after) and notes that it is only hermetic/spec-conformance tested. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., resume_carrier_subscriber) or when not to use it. The usage context is implied by the action name and the guarded-write safety remarks rather than explicitly stated.

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