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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description needs to add context such as whether revocation is immediate, permanent, or affects in-flight requests. It adds none of this; the single sentence merely echoes the action.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no wasted words and the action is front-loaded, but the brevity stems from under-specification rather than efficiency.

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 mutation with no output schema and an undocumented required identifier, the description leaves the agent without the information needed to call it safely or 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?

The required 'id' parameter has no description in the schema or the tool description, leaving only 50% coverage. The description offers no clarification of what an id refers to or how to obtain it.

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 restates the title and name almost verbatim ('Revoke an API key'), giving a verb and resource but no scope information that distinguishes it from siblings like cloud_keys_list or cloud_keys_rename.

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 guidance on when to revoke versus rename, whether the key must be listed first, or what to do if the id is unknown. Usage is only inferable from the tool name itself.

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