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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses irreversibility, post-revocation 401 behavior, auth header requirement, return fields, cost, and latency—rich behavioral context for a destructive operation.

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?

Structured with a front-loaded purpose, then compact when/when-not, inputs, returns, cost, and latency sections. Every section adds decision-relevant information without 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 no-parameter destructive tool with no annotations or output schema, the description supplies use guidance, effects, return shape, cost, and latency. Complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

Zero input parameters, so there is no parameter surface to document; schema coverage is trivially complete. The description adds that auth comes from the Authorization: Bearer header, but the baseline for 0 params is 4.

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/deactivates) and resource (the API key used to make this request), and emphasizes irreversibility. It also points to get_api_key for the adjacent quota-check use case, so an agent can distinguish this from at least the most relevant sibling.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use sections name key rotation and compromise scenarios, plus get_api_key as the alternative for quota checks. Leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke it.

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