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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by revealing the asynchronous approval flow: it returns an approval URL, makes no change until separate human approval, and requires reusing the identical requestId and details to fetch the result. This is essential behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

Three concise sentences deliver the purpose, the immediate consequence, the approval behavior, and the retrieval requirement. Every sentence contributes new information, and the most important facts are front-loaded. No filler or 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 destructive, asynchronous tool, the description covers the before-state (approval required), the effect (integrations stop authenticating), and the follow-up mechanism (reuse requestId/details). With the output schema present, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke and track the operation 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 description adds meaning by explaining that requestId and details are not just input parameters but must be reused identically to retrieve the eventual result. It also signals that the API key id must be one the caller owns. The schema already constrains formats, so the description gives the critical semantic context without repeating structure.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Revoke one owned API key'. It immediately distinguishes this from create/list operations and clearly states the consequence: 'integrations using it will stop authenticating'. There is no ambiguity about what operation is performed.

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 clearly frames when this tool is appropriate: revoking a single owned API key when the user wants integrations to stop authenticating. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope and consequence make the usage context clear.

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