Verify and increment license uses

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description's genuine addition is the auth disclosure ('no OAuth required') and the confirmation requirement, but the latter duplicates the schema's confirm parameter and it does not explain the consequences of the non-idempotent counter increment.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the constraints; no filler. 'The intended private license' is slightly vague phrasing but does not bloat the text.

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 mutation tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the confirmation requirement, and auth needs. It stops short of describing reversibility or how the counter change can be undone (e.g., via decrement_license_uses), which would fully close the loop.

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 all fully documented in the schema with strong constraints (pattern, maxLength, 'never inherited credentials'). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the 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 compound action (verify + increment a license's native usage counter), which is clearer than a tautology. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like verify_license or decrement_license_uses, so the agent must infer the distinction from the verb 'increment' alone.

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?

'Explicit confirmation required' gives a precondition, and the action is clearly a license mutation, so usage is implied. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus verify_license (read-only verify) or decrement_license_uses (the inverse operation), which are the obvious alternatives an agent would weigh.

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