negative_support_deactivate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for transparency. It discloses the key behavioral limitation (no server-side token revocation) and the local process scope, which is sufficient for this simple, zero-parameter tool. It does not discuss reversibility or permissions, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity.

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, well-structured sentence with the main action front-loaded and the critical caveat in parentheses. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description fully covers what the tool does and its most important non-effect. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially complete. According to the baseline for 0 params, the description does not need to add parameter information. It adds no param semantics but also does not need to.

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 ('Clear') and resource ('active license') with a scope ('in this process'), and the clarifying parenthetical distinguishes it from server-level revocation. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like activate or generate.

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 clear context about what the tool does and explicitly notes it does not revoke the token on the server, which helps the agent decide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it beyond the caveat.

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