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

Goes beyond the annotations' destructiveHint by stating the key stops working on its very next request (immediate effect) and that the action is irreversible with a concrete recovery path (create a new key). This is exactly the kind of operational context annotations cannot convey.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and including only the details an agent needs: how to get the id, when the effect lands, and that it cannot be undone.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers action, parameter origin, timing of effect, and irreversibility. Nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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% and the schema already describes keyId as coming from list_api_keys, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the structured field. Baseline 3 applies.

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 + resource ("Revoke an API key") with the identifier source named inline. Easily distinguished from siblings like create_api_key and list_api_keys without opening any schema.

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?

Points to list_api_keys as the way to obtain the keyId, which establishes the expected workflow. It does not explicitly state exclusions (e.g., use revoke_agent_session for sessions), but the surrounding context makes the boundary clear.

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