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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the approval flow (returns approval_url, owner must click), that the new key plaintext is intentionally not returned to the requesting agent, and that it's surfaced only to the human owner via Settings -> Agents. This is rich, actionable behavioral detail.

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?

The description is dense but not verbose. Each sentence adds critical information (purpose, mirror to sibling, plaintext handling, usage scenario). It could be slightly tightened, but every component earns its place, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 tool with no output schema and complex human-in-the-loop behavior, the description fully explains the return value (approval_url), the required owner approval, the plaintext distribution path, and the appropriate use case. It leaves no obvious gaps for an agent to misuse the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: the 'reason' surfaces on the consent card and is capped at 500 chars, and it clarifies the purpose of target_agent_id (another agent). This elevates the value over schema alone.

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 clearly states the action: asking the human owner to rotate another agent's API key, including minting a new one and revoking the old. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it's for another agent and referring to request_revoke_agent_key, making the purpose 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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use when you've spotted leakage and the target needs a clean credential without going dark mid-task.' This clarifies a concrete scenario. It also contrasts with request_revoke_agent_key by referencing the same shape, but doesn't enumerate alternative tools or when not to use it, so it's not a full 5.

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