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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond them: the breakage is immediate ('stop working at once') and revocation is limited to OAuth/signed-in credentials. It omits whether revocation is permanent or whether keys can be re-created to restore access.

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, zero filler, with the action and its blast radius front-loaded. Every clause carries information an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.

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 no output schema, the description covers impact and authorization scope adequately, and annotations carry the safety profile. The only meaningful hole is provenance of the 'id' value.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single required parameter 'id' is never mentioned in the description. The schema supplies type and format but nothing links the id to a key obtained via keys_list, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 precise verb (Revoke) and resource (API key), and adds the scope constraint 'Signed-in (OAuth) connections only'. An agent can immediately distinguish this from the sibling keys_list, which reads rather than mutates.

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?

Gives the operative precondition for use ('Signed-in (OAuth) connections only') and the consequence that selects careful use ('Scripts and integrations using it stop working at once'). It never names a sibling or an explicit when-not, so it stops short of a 5.

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