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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly carried. The description adds real context beyond that: the effect is immediate, irreversible, and breaks every consumer of the key — the key fact an agent needs before pulling this trigger. It omits permission requirements and whether an already-revoked key raises an error (annotation implies no-op).

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the consequence front-loaded right after the action so the risk is read before the call is made.

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 tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, this covers the essentials: what it does, that it's irreversible, and what breaks. Only permission requirements and the exact response/error behavior on a repeat call are left implicit.

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 coverage is 100% with a single required `id` parameter, so the schema does the work and the baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning about the id — notably it doesn't clarify whether it refers to a key in the current mode, which is directly relevant to the "of this mode" phrasing.

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?

Specific verb (revoke) plus resource (API key), and "of this mode" adds a scoping qualifier distinguishing mode-scoped keys from one another. It doesn't name the companion tools (list_api_keys, create_api_key) that would make the boundary explicit, so it's clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

"Immediate and permanent: anything using it stops working" implies this is the terminal action for a key and warns against casual use. However, it never states when to choose revocation over alternatives (e.g. rotating or creating a replacement key first), and there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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