suspend_server

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies that suspension is forceful, prevents user restarts, and requires an Application API key for authorization. No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences with zero waste: first defines the action, second provides usage context and alternative, third states auth requirement. Each sentence adds critical information.

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 admin tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral effects, and auth requirements well. It could mention response format or error cases, but annotations help fill gaps.

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 100% with a single parameter 'server_id' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 action ('suspend'), the resource ('server'), and qualifies it as an 'admin action'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'unsuspend_server' and 'delete_server' by specifying forceful stopping without deletion.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('to disable a server for policy violations or billing issues') and when not to use (implies not for temporary stops). Names the alternative tool 'unsuspend_server' for re-enabling.

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