downgrade_subscription

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: lower limits and credits apply immediately, the lower price starts at the next renewal, and the current period is not refunded. This is exactly the kind of consequence an agent needs before invoking a destructive billing mutation.

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 dense but front-loaded, with the core action first and timing, refund, permission, and confirmation constraints following. Every clause carries operational meaning for a destructive billing action.

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 destructive subscription mutation with no output schema, the description covers timing effects, refund behavior, directionality, permission requirements, and confirmation requirements. Nothing essential for safe invocation appears to be missing.

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%, so both the optional target tier and required confirmation are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the target must be lower and that confirmation is explicit, but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource: downgrade the subscription one tier or to an explicit lower tier. It clearly distinguishes this from upward, cancellation, pause, and resume operations through 'strictly downward only.'

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?

It gives strong usage constraints: downward moves only, requires billing:write, and must be called only after explicit user confirmation. It does not explicitly name upgrade_subscription or cancel_subscription as alternatives, but the downward-only scope makes the boundary clear.

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