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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral details: immediate revocation, irreversibility, and the need for human confirmation in automated pipelines. These specifics go beyond the annotation flags and help the agent understand the real-world impact.

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 concise, with the warning front-loaded, followed by the action and consequences. Every sentence contributes essential information with no 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 tool with one parameter, the description fully covers purpose, consequences, and alternatives. An agent has everything needed to decide and invoke it correctly, especially with output schema available for return values.

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 already covers the single parameter 'key' with a clear description including format (dnx_...) and purpose. The description adds no further parameter information, but at 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'revoke' and the resource 'API key', making the action unmistakable. It explicitly says 'Permanently revoke' and differentiates from siblings like generate and rotate by emphasizing permanent removal.

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 context for when to use this tool, including the warning about human confirmation and irreversibility. It also suggests an alternative ('generate a new key') when access is needed again, though it doesn't explicitly mention the rotate sibling.

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