users_revoke_user_subscription

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden, yet it only restates 'revoke' without disclosing consequences (subscription URL regeneration, invalidation of existing keys), reversibility, required permissions, or the confirm:true gate that blocks the call as a preview otherwise. For a mutation endpoint this is a significant gap.

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 text is brief and front-loads the actionable purpose, but the raw 'POST /api/users/{userId}/actions/revoke' line and 'Tags: Users Controller' are low-value filler that consume most of the definition without adding agent-relevant 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?

A destructive-style mutation with no annotations, no output schema, low parameter coverage, and an undocumented confirm gate needs far more explanation than one sentence. Nothing tells the agent what happens to the user's subscription URL or passwords after the call.

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 contributes nothing about any parameter. Critically, it omits the confirm parameter's preview behavior and the userId/body relationship, leaving the low-coverage schema to carry semantics it only partially documents.

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 ('Revoke user subscription'), and the HTTP path confirms it acts on a single user identified by userId. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like users_reset_user_traffic or users_extend_user_expiration_date, though the description does nothing to differentiate it from users_bulk_actions_bulk_revoke_users_subscription or the revokeOnlyPasswords variant it actually supports.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as the bulk revoke sibling. The body parameter hints at a password-only mode but the description never explains when to use this tool versus related user-management operations.

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