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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's added value is specifying exactly what is destroyed — all data stored under the key — and that the effect is permanent. That is the key behavioral fact an agent needs before calling. It stops short of stating irreversibility guarantees, auth scope, or whether any grace period exists.

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 with zero filler, and the destructive consequence is front-loaded ahead of the mechanical prerequisite.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and strong annotations, the description covers effect, permanence, and the confirm gate. Only authentication expectations and the exact failure behavior of confirm=false are left unstated, which are minor gaps here.

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 50%: the key parameter is documented in the schema (including the x-kyde-key header fallback), while confirm is a bare boolean. The description compensates for the undocumented parameter by stating 'Requires confirm=true', which is the one fact that matters. Baseline 3 fits given the partial coverage.

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 (revoke) and resource (the key), plus the consequential scope: all data under it is deleted. It does not explicitly name create_key as the inverse, but the purpose is unambiguous against the sibling set.

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 gives the confirm=true prerequisite, which is real usage guidance, but never says when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it. The revoke-vs-create contrast is only inferable from the tool name and sibling list.

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