users_revoke_subscription

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the action ('Revoke subscription') and a side effect ('generates new subscription link'), but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects user access immediately, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Revoke subscription') and includes a useful additional detail ('generates new subscription link'). There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral outcomes, error conditions, or return values. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for safe and effective use by an AI agent, especially compared to richer sibling tools.

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%, with the single parameter 'uuid' documented as 'User UUID'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

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 clearly states the action ('Revoke subscription') and the target ('for a Remnawave user'), with the additional detail that it 'generates new subscription link'. It distinguishes from siblings like subscription_info or subscriptions_get_by_uuid by focusing on revocation rather than retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other user management tools like users_disable or users_delete, which slightly limits clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., user must have an active subscription), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like users_disable or subscription_info. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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