sassy_setup_license

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses side effects: activate registers the machine with LS and mints a local HMAC payload, validate forces an immediate re-check (normally weekly), and deactivate frees the seat and removes the local file. It also explains that offline use works via the local payload. Some details like failure modes or error handling are omitted, but the major behavioral traits are covered.

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 well-organized with a front-loaded purpose, a short contextual note, and a bulleted breakdown of actions. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value; no filler or repetition. The structure makes it easy for an agent to parse.

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 that an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the description covers all necessary context: the tool's purpose, the optional nature of the license, each action's behavior, the key format, and offline-use implications. It is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool.

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?

The schema provides zero parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must fully compensate. It does so by explaining the 'action' values (status, activate, deactivate, validate) and the 'key' format (XXXXXXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXXXXXXXXXX), plus the conditional requirement for activate. This is significantly more informative than the bare 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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Manage your SassyMCP supporter license against LemonSqueezy.' It further specifies four distinct actions (status, activate, deactivate, validate), making the tool's scope unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools like sassy_setup_status or sassy_setup_wizard.

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 states that all tool groups are unlocked without a key, so the license is optional, and then gives action-specific guidance (e.g., 'key required for activate', 'validate forces an immediate LS re-check', 'deactivate calls LS to free this machine's seat'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the actions are clear enough for an agent to choose appropriately.

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