ls_deactivate_license

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint and readOnlyHint, but the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond them: the operation is rate-limited, audited, and masks the license key in audit entries. This is exactly the kind of contextual disclosure that helps an agent anticipate consequences.

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?

Three tight sentences: action and effect, destructive consequences, and auth requirement. Every sentence adds non-redundant information, and the most important scoping facts are front-loaded.

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?

For a two-parameter destructive action with annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, this description is complete. It covers purpose, effect, consequences, rate-limiting, auditing, masking, and authentication. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining that the licenseKey parameter is not just an identifier but also the authentication credential for this call. That is helpful detail beyond the schema's bare 'The license key'.

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 ('Deactivate') with a precise resource ('a license key instance') and states the observable effect ('revoking that instance's access'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ls_activate_license and ls_validate_license without needing to open schemas.

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 clear context for when the tool is appropriate: to revoke access for a specific license instance. It also adds a practical auth signal ('Does not require an API key — uses the license key itself for auth'). It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions, so it misses the full 5.

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