license_update_key

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals this is a mutating operation but does not explain whether it overwrites the existing license, requires special permissions, or has irreversible effects. The 'confirm: Required' note hints at a safety mechanism but remains unexplained.

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 description is compact and front-loaded with the core action. The Args section is minimal and easy to scan, though some of that brevity sacrifices needed behavioral detail.

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?

Although this is a simple 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the absence of annotations and usage context leaves significant gaps: an agent cannot tell when to invoke it, what the confirmation parameter actually does, or that it may overwrite an active license. More behavioral and contextual detail is needed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only restates the parameter names: 'key: License key' and 'confirm: Required.' Worse, 'confirm: Required' conflicts with the schema, where only key is required and confirm has a default of false, adding confusion instead of clarity.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Install a new license key.' It clearly differentiates this tool from the related siblings license_get and license_proof, which imply reading/validating rather than changing the license.

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 on when to use this tool versus license_get or license_proof, nor any mention of prerequisites or consequences such as replacing an existing key. The intended use is only implicit from the verb 'Install.'

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