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 discloses that revocation is immediate and denies further access, but it does not state whether revocation is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens on failure.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, for a destructive operation with no annotations and undocumented parameters, it is arguably too sparse to be appropriately sized.

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?

Given the complete absence of annotations, schema descriptions, and output schema, the description is not complete enough for a destructive mutation tool. It omits irreversibility, required permissions, failure modes, and return behavior, which an agent needs before invoking it.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and both required parameters, bot_id and key_id, have no descriptions in the schema. The description mentions only 'an API key' and does not explain which parameter identifies the bot versus the key, leaving parameter meaning undocumented.

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: revoke an API key, and adds the immediate effect of denying further access. It is clearly distinct from create_api_key and list_api_keys by action, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings or name alternatives.

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 sentence implies that the tool is used to cut off access, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives such as list_api_keys for inspecting keys first. There is no warning about when not to use this destructive action.

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