licensing_revoke_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this excellently: explains this is a soft delete (key kept with active: false), discloses the 24-hour effect window on the instance, states irreversibility, and notes the owner-only restriction. This provides rich behavioral transparency beyond the schema.

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 efficient—four sentences pack in purpose, effect, irreversibility, and authorization. Every sentence earns its place with distinct information. Slightly verbose in places (e.g., the soft-delete explanation could be tighter) but overall well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thorough. It covers the purpose, side effects, irreversibility, authorization requirement, and timing of the effect. One small gap: it doesn't state what the response/return value looks like, but with no output schema and a simple id input, this is a minor omission rather than a significant gap.

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% (the single 'id' parameter is described as 'UUID of the license key to revoke'). The description reinforces that the target is a license key, matching the schema. While the schema already covers the parameter well, the description adds the context that this is specifically a key that is currently active and will be deactivated, adding mild value 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 clearly states the verb (revoke/deactivate) and resource (license key), explains the effect on the associated self-hosted instance, and distinguishes it from siblings like licensing_create_key and licensing_list_keys by focusing on the destructive deactivation action.

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 explains the consequential behavior (fallback to Free plan within 24 hours), the irreversibility (revoked keys cannot be reactivated; generate a new key instead), and the authorization requirement (only the organization owner can revoke). It doesn't explicitly contrast with licensing_create_key as the alternative, but the irreversibility note implicitly guides the agent to prefer creating a new key over revoking when the goal is to reissue.

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