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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the most important trait — the revocation is permanent and cannot be undone — but says nothing about permission requirements, whether it requires confirmation upstream, or what happens to integrations using the key. Useful but incomplete for a destructive mutation.

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?

One tight sentence with the destructive nature front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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, unannotated mutation with no output schema, the description covers irreversibility but leaves out permission/auth requirements and the source of api_key_id. It is minimally sufficient to avoid a mistaken call but not complete.

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 67%, and the undocumented parameter is api_key_id, which is the critical one — the description never says where that id comes from (e.g. list_asc_api_keys) or what format it takes. The notification_message and confirm_revoke_api_key semantics come entirely from the schema, not the description.

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) and resource (App Store Connect API team key), and flags the operation as permanent. An agent can distinguish it from create_asc_api_key, list_asc_api_keys, and download_asc_api_key by the verb alone, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives — notably it doesn't tell the agent to first enumerate keys with list_asc_api_keys to obtain the id. The only usage-relevant signal is the irreversibility warning, which is a caution rather than a routing rule.

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