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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the key stops working immediately, requires an Authorization Bearer header, and can be replaced via create_agent_account; it stops short of describing failure modes, irreversibility guarantees, or the response format.

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 three short sentences with the key action and immediate effect front-loaded. Every sentence adds useful information: what happens, how to replace the key, and authentication requirements.

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 zero-parameter destructive operation with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, auth requirement, and recovery path. It could be slightly more complete by stating whether revocation is irreversible or what a successful response indicates.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics have no schema burden beyond baseline. The description's mention of the Authorization header is auxiliary context, not a substitutable parameter, and does not create confusion.

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: withdrawing the API key used by the current request. It also distinguishes the recovery path by naming create_agent_account, so the agent can understand this tool's role relative to a sibling.

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 makes clear that this tool revokes the current request's key and that create_agent_account should be used to obtain a replacement. It provides clear context and an explicit alternative, though it does not state explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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