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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: the blast radius ('anything using it stops working immediately') and explicit irreversibility, which tells the agent the impact extends to dependent clients, not just the key record.

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, front-loaded with the verb and target, then the consequence and irreversibility. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 destructive mutation with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: the target, the id source, and the consequence. It omits only minor details such as the response shape or behavior when the key is already revoked (relevant despite the idempotent hint).

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents keyId as a UUID sourced from clipember_list_api_keys. The description repeats that provenance but adds no format, validation, or edge-case detail beyond the schema — the correct baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('permanently revoke an API key') with the targeting key ('by id'), and names the sibling tool that produces that id. An agent can distinguish this from clipember_list_api_keys and the other clipember mutators without opening a 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?

Gives clear context: the id must come from clipember_list_api_keys, and the action is irreversible, which tells the agent this is a last-resort operation. It does not explicitly name an alternative or state when-not-to-use (e.g., rotation vs. revocation), so it falls short of a 5.

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