ls_update_license_key

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

The description claims setting disabled: true is treated as destructive (rate-limited and audited), but annotations have destructiveHint: false, creating a contradiction. This inconsistency undermines agent trust and decision-making.

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 two sentences: first states purpose with specific verb and resource, second adds critical context about destructive behavior. No unnecessary words, well 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 simple update tool with no output schema, the description covers the main actions and side effects. However, it lacks mention of prerequisites, error states, or comparison to sibling tools like ls_deactivate_license, which would improve completeness.

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?

Input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool updates a license key and lists the specific fields (activation limit, expiry, disabled status). It distinguishes from siblings by implying this tool handles multiple updates, unlike potentially more specialized tools like ls_deactivate_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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ls_deactivate_license or other update tools. It implies usage through the listed fields but provides no comparative guidance.

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