Disable license

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond the annotations: the underlying native PUT endpoint and the required 'edit_products' scope, plus the per-call confirmation requirement.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the action, then endpoint/scope, then the confirmation constraint. No wasted words, though it is telegraphic rather than explanatory.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers auth scope and the confirmation prerequisite, which is what an agent needs before invoking. It stops short of describing the effect on already-issued license keys, which is the main remaining 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 description coverage is 100%, so account, confirm, and product_id are already fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of per-call confirmation lightly reinforces the confirm parameter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema baseline.

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 ('Disable license') that clearly separates it from siblings like enable_license, rotate_license, and disable_product. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the action is unambiguous.

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 line 'Requires explicit per-call confirmation' implies usage context and ties to the confirm parameter, but there is no guidance on when to disable vs. rotate or revoke, nor any named alternative among the many license-related siblings.

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