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

With no annotations to rely on, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the soft-delete via 'revokedAt', that subsequent requests return 401, that the agent's own key revocation is effectively a self-destruct where the next request fails, and that users can revoke any key they own. This goes beyond basic mutation details and provides crucial operational context.

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 concise yet information-dense. Each sentence earns its place: it states the action, the result, the permission model, the self-destruct warning, and the alternative tool. No fluff 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?

Given a simple 1-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides comprehensive context: behavior, consequences, permission scoping, and an alternative. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool safely and understand the impact.

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?

The input schema already fully documents the only parameter 'id' with 100% coverage, including the default behavior when omitted. The description does not add further meaning to the parameter itself beyond what the schema states. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema_description_coverage is 100%.

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 uses a specific verb 'revoke' and resource 'API key', clearly stating the operation. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'rotate_api_key' by explicitly mentioning it as an alternative. The soft-delete mechanism and 401 return further clarify the exact function.

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 provides explicit usage context: when to revoke, who can revoke (agents vs users), and the self-destruct consequence. It also gives an alternative ('rotate_api_key') for swapping credentials without downtime, effectively saying when not to use this tool. This is a model of usage guidance.

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