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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine value by disclosing the blast radius: ALL passwords for one logical key are revoked, while independently named keys survive. It stops short of saying whether active connections drop immediately or whether revocation is reversible.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the scoping constraint. No filler or 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, idempotent mutation the description conveys scope well and annotations carry the safety signal, but it omits the two required parameters entirely and says nothing about the effect on in-flight calls or the response. Adequate, not complete.

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 0% and the description never mentions agent_id or key_id, leaving both required parameters undocumented. It hints at the 'logical PBX key' concept but gives no clue why an agent_id is needed alongside a key_id or what format either takes.

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 (revoke) and resource (all passwords for one logical PBX key), plus a scope clarification that other keys are unaffected. An agent can tell this is a targeted credential revocation, though it never names the adjacent sibling rotate_pbx_key, so the boundary between revoke and rotate must be inferred.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative, despite siblings like rotate_pbx_key, create_pbx_key, and list_pbx_keys that an agent must choose between. The 'other keys unaffected' clause gives blast-radius scope but is not a routing instruction.

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