You have to do this
In every game system wherein there is a GM, it is the GMs responsibility to narrate at least some portion of the system. This makes sense, because a game wherein the GM's job did not include communicating in any way should not have a GM in the first place (sitting around not communicating while everyone else engages in collaborative activity is... not really being a part of that activity).
What the GM narrates, how much authority the GM has, and how much the GM should influence player action varies a lot by system and group. But you are always saying something to the players, and it's important to recognise that everything you decide, and everything you say, is a suggestion to the players to engage in various sorts of activity.
In many traditional games, the GM is responsible for narrating the environment around the PCs. Players can't, for example, decide that there is a bench in a room just because they want there to be one, but the GM can. If a player wants a bench to sit on, and the GM has not yet described one, the player must say something along the lines of "Is there a bench in the room?", prompting the GM to say "Yes, there is a bench in the room" or "No, no benches!". Far more than a simple question of setting, this interaction can also be a suggestion by the player that there be a bench in the room, and is certainly a suggestion that the detail of whether or not a bench is in the room should be promptly resolved-- that is to say it is a suggestion towards a specific GM action: defining the existence or non-existence of the bench (and might, depending on how it is presented, be furthermore a suggestion towards one of those two options).
Similarly, when describing things, the statements made by the GM influence the decisions of the players, and so these descriptions can be interpreted as suggestions insofar as they are formative to the players' decision making processes.
For example, suppose you tell the players "As you enter the room, you see three goblins, and a swarthy-haired human with an eyepatch and a dark scowl". You have just told the players "Hey! This human is important! The goblins are also important, but less important than the human. You should do things with the human and the goblins!". By describing only the goblins and the human, you have suggested that the players' actions should involve these things, especially the human, who got extra detail. The players don't have to interact with these things-- for example, they could respond with "of what make is the doorframe? Now that it is open, can I see the hinges?"-- but you are suggesting that they respond with something more like "Are they armed? Does the human appear to be working with the goblins? Have they spotted us yet?".
And even in games where the GM does not describe the environment, whatever the GM does describe will always function the same way: by communicating we necessarily shape one another's decisions, and this behavior is desirable and fundamental in any collaborative or competitive environment.
Now, as aforementioned, there are many different ways these suggestions can be made, and many different degrees of force to the suggestions, and many different things the suggestions can be about. What kinds of things you should and should not suggest and how hard you should suggest them and in what manner are all dependendent on the various factors shaping your RPG, principally the system, the people you are playing with, any outstanding agreements, and how everyone feels at the time. But you must do this at least somewhat, and with some things.