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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses the required role (owner), the immediacy/irreversibility of the action ('right away'), and the cascading destruction ('end every session it opened'). It does not state whether revocation is permanent or what the call returns, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the permission gate and destructive scope front-loaded before the action detail. Every clause conveys distinct 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 single-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: authorization, effect, and cascade. It stops short only on irreversibility/reversibility and error behavior, which are minor for this scope.

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 single parameter bot_id has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate — it does not. It refers to 'a bot key' while the parameter is named bot_id, leaving the identifier format (key ID vs bot ID) and whether a key handle is needed genuinely ambiguous.

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 ('Revoke a bot key') and immediately names the side effect ('end every session it opened'), which separates it from the inverse sibling create_bot_key and from the narrower end_session. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 'Owner only' gate is a genuine usage precondition, so context is present. However, it never contrasts with end_session, which also terminates sessions, nor explains when revoking a key is preferable to ending individual sessions — the key ambiguity among these siblings is left to inference.

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