Decrement license uses

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

Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the required edit_products scope and the mandatory per-call confirmation requirement, both of which affect whether an agent can invoke it.

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?

Two terse sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by endpoint and scope. No filler; every clause carries operational meaning.

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, non-idempotent mutation with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the key extras (scope, confirmation requirement). It is nearly complete, with only the increment/decrement routing left implicit.

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%, and the schema already documents account, confirm, and product_id thoroughly (including where to copy the product_id from). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Decrement license uses') naming the exact operation, plus the backing endpoint PUT /licenses/decrement_uses_count. It is clearly distinguishable from increment_license_uses by name, though it does not explicitly reference that sibling.

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 required scope 'edit_products' and the 'requires explicit per-call confirmation' clause give useful preconditions, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing versus the obvious alternative increment_license_uses.

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