licensing_revoke_key

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it discloses the consequence (instance falls back to Free plan within 24 hours), that it is a soft delete (active: false, record retained), irreversibility (cannot be reactivated), and an authorization constraint (org owner only). These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs for a destructive 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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then consequence, mutability, and permission. Every sentence contributes a distinct operational fact 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?

For a destructive, single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers consequence, reversibility, retention, timing, and authorization — everything needed to invoke it correctly and safely. Nothing material is 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 coverage is 100% with a single documented parameter ('UUID of the license key to revoke'), so the schema already carries full parameter meaning. The description adds no format or usage detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Revoke (deactivate) a license key') and distinguishes the action from its siblings by noting that revoked keys cannot be reactivated and a new key should be generated instead. An agent can tell this apart from licensing_create_key and licensing_validate without opening any schema.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use it (permanent revocation) and effectively when not to (no reactivation possible — use a new key path instead). It stops just short of naming the sibling tool to select, so it's strong but not fully explicit routing.

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