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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a real behavioral fact beyond them: revocation takes effect immediately ('stops working at once'), i.e. no grace period. It does not say whether revoked keys are recoverable or whether other integrations break.

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 clauses, zero filler, with the resource and scope front-loaded and the effect stated last. Nothing could be cut without losing signal.

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 single-param destructive tool whose annotations carry the safety profile and whose response is a simple outcome, the description is sufficient to call it correctly. Minor remaining gap is the absence of any note on irreversibility or side effects on systems using the key.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description goes further by stating where the id comes from (list_api_keys) and that it scopes to this workspace's keys, giving provenance the schema lacks.

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 (this workspace's API key) with the exact selection key (its id). It is trivially distinguishable from the sibling pair list_api_keys and make_an_api_key.

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?

Tells the agent the prerequisite for the id (from list_api_keys), which is the practical when-to-use path. It does not name any exclusion case (e.g. keys owned by other workspaces or keys that cannot be revoked), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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