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

Annotations already mark this non-read-only, non-idempotent and destructive, and the description adds substantive context beyond them: the old key is revoked, the new key is displayed only once, and the partner is notified by text. These are exactly the side effects and irreversibility details an agent needs before invoking a rotation.

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 short sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and each sentence contributes a distinct fact (what happens, when to use, side effect).

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers outcome and side effects well, and annotations cover the safety profile. It is slightly incomplete in that it doesn't state the authorization requirement for obtaining/using the current key, though the schema covers that surface.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the single partner_key parameter is fully documented there including the REST Bearer alternative. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Revokes the current partner key') plus the effect ('returns a new one'). It is clearly distinguishable in substance from partner_claim_key, but it never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts itself, so it falls short of a 5 by this rubric.

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?

'Use it if the key may have leaked' gives a concrete trigger condition for selecting this tool. No when-not guidance or named alternatives (e.g., partner_claim_key for first-time claim) are provided, which keeps it below 5.

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