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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description goes beyond that by specifying the concrete consequence: the old secret fails with 401 invalid_api_key and the same id is revoked. It also discloses a scope constraint with 'No ops file-edit', adding useful behavioral detail beyond the annotation flags.

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 three concise sentences with no filler. The core action and consequence are front-loaded, and the auth guidance and side-effect note each earn their place.

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 zero-parameter, destructive revocation tool, the description covers the action, the mechanism, the auth method, and the post-revocation behavior. With annotations already marking destructiveness, nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke 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?

The input schema has no parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description nevertheless clarifies that the secret is presented via HTTP auth rather than as a parameter, noting the Bearer preference and X-API-Key alias.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Invalidate the presented secret (POST /keys/revoke)', which clearly states the action and endpoint. It further defines the effect (same id revoked, old secret fails with 401), distinguishing it from siblings like rotate_key or verify_key.

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 clear invocation context: the secret is presented via the request, and Authorization: Bearer is preferred over X-API-Key. However, it does not explicitly state when to use revoke_key versus siblings such as rotate_key or verify_key, leaving the choice partly implied.

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