users_revoke_subscription

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It does mention the new subscription link being generated, which is useful, but it does not disclose whether the action is reversible, what happens to the old link, impact on active connections, or any permission requirements. For a mutating 'revoke' action, this is a significant transparency 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?

A single, focused sentence that states the action, resource, and key effect without filler. The information is front-loaded and every word contributes to the core message.

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?

Given the simple tool shape (one parameter, no output schema) the minimal description covers the primary action, but it omits the usage boundary verses the bulk variant and lacks side-effect details such as reversibility. The absence of annotations makes these omissions more noticeable, so the description is adequate but not 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 100% and the sole parameter 'userId' is already described in the schema. The description adds no new meaning about the parameter beyond that, which fits the baseline of 3; there is no gap to compensate for.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Revoke subscription for a Remnawave user' immediately identifies the action and target. The parenthetical 'generates new subscription link' adds the key consequence, which clearly distinguishes this singular action from bulk alternatives in the sibling list like users_bulk_revoke_subscription.

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 gives no guidance about when to choose this tool versus the sibling bulk revoke tool or other user-state mutations (enable, disable, reset_traffic). There is no explicit mention of single-user vs bulk tradeoffs, prerequisites, or typical workflow, so the agent is left to infer from the name alone.

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