Deactivate license

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuinely useful auth context ('No global API-key fallback; customer metadata stays private'), but says nothing about irreversibility or what happens to the instance. Adds some value beyond annotations, no contradiction.

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?

Only two short sentences, but the first ('Use the selected private profile license credential for native deactivate license') is grammatically garbled and front-loads credential mechanics over the actual action. Not bloated, but the phrasing costs clarity.

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, 5-parameter tool with a nested payload object and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits expected outcomes, failure modes (e.g., invalid instance_id), and the profile-vs-API-key prerequisite already noted. Annotations plus a 100%-covered schema carry most of the load, so it is minimally viable.

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 every parameter (account, confirm, payload, instance_id, payload_file) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb+resource combination ('deactivate license'), so the agent knows the operation is deactivating a license. However, the phrasing 'for native deactivate license' is awkward and it never distinguishes itself from siblings like activate_license or validate_license. Clear but with no sibling differentiation.

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 says to 'use the selected private profile license credential' but never states when to use this tool versus activate_license, validate_license, or get_license_key_instance. There is no when-to-use condition or exclusion, so an agent gets no routing guidance.

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