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

Goes well past the annotations: it discloses immediate and irreversible revocation, the exact failure mode for later calls (401 revoked_key), and that jobs/results survive and remain readable via other keys and /account. It also confirms sandbox and live keys are both affected, which the destructiveHint alone would not tell an agent.

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?

Front-loads the action and its permanence, then layers consequences, data retention, scope, and the confirm requirement in short declarative clauses. Every sentence carries a distinct fact; nothing is redundant with the title beyond the necessary restatement of scope.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: irreversibility, downstream error behavior, data survival, key-type scope, and the confirm requirement. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 schema already documents both parameters; the description nonetheless reinforces the mandatory confirm gate for MCP callers, which is the one parameter behavior most likely to be gotten wrong. It adds nothing about the optional api_key parameter, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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 and resource ('Revokes the API key') and narrows the scope precisely — the key making the call, not any key. The REST-equivalence note ('The same as DELETE /api/v1/key') removes any residual ambiguity and no sibling tool performs revocation, so the boundary is 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?

Makes clear this operates only on the calling key, which is the critical precondition an agent needs, and states the invocation gate ('MCP tools need confirm: true'). No alternative tool is named, but none exists among the siblings, so there is little left to disambiguate.

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