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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses ownership restriction, the future-denial side effect, that existing accounts remain functional, the 404 error for unknown ids, and cost. This is unusually complete behavioral context.

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 compact sentences, each earning its place: authorization, side effects, error behavior, and cost. The most important contextual constraint ('Owner only') is front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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 two-parameter revoke operation with an output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: permission, expected input source, persistence semantics, and an error case. Nothing else is required for safe invocation.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description gives a valuable hint that code_id comes from list_access_codes and links it to the revoke behavior. api_key is not described, but its name/title and this tool's 'Owner only' context make its role reasonably clear; this is a minor gap rather than a severe one.

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 opens with a specific action, 'revoke an access code', and gives the source of the identifier ('code_id from list_access_codes'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like revoke_key. It also states the intended effect, so an agent can identify the tool by behavior, not just name.

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?

'Owner only' gives a clear prerequisite, and 'code_id from list_access_codes' tells the agent where to obtain a valid input. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name revoke_key as the alternative for keys, but the access-code scope is clear enough for most selection cases.

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