users_revoke_subscription

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is partly covered, and the description usefully discloses the actual side effect (link plus credential rotation). However, the disclosed effect (invalidating credentials/links) sits in tension with destructiveHint=false, and no permissions, reversibility, or post-state behavior is described. Adds value but leaves ambiguity.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first, followed by the key side effect. No filler, though the parenthetical is slightly terse and could be clearer about which credentials rotate.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no output schema, so the description carries more burden than it does. It covers the core effect but omits the resulting user state (does the user remain? is access immediately cut?) and permission requirements, leaving meaningful gaps for an operation of this consequence.

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 67%, with shortUuid and revokeOnlyPasswords already well documented in the schema. The description's "unless told otherwise" hints at the revokeOnlyPasswords behavior but does not name the parameter or clarify its interaction with the link rotation. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does most of the work.

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 immediately qualifies the effect by naming the rotated artifacts (subscription link and credentials). This is clearly distinct from siblings like users_reset_traffic or users_delete, though it never names an alternative to differentiate itself explicitly.

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 guidance on when to revoke a subscription versus alternatives such as users_disable, users_delete, or users_bulk_revoke_subscription. The agent must infer the use case entirely; no prerequisites, no when-not, no alternative routing is provided.

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