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

Annotation Contradiction: the description describes revoking a key immediately, which is a destructive, irreversible action, yet destructiveHint is false. This is a serious inconsistency. The description does add useful behavioral details (409 refusal, 403 mode_mismatch), but the contradiction with the annotation forces a score of 1.

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 three tight sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and the constraints and error cases are compressed into relevant, scannable clauses.

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 tool without an output schema, the description covers the core behavior, the main edge cases, and the scope. It lacks an explicit statement of what happens on success, but the failure modes are sufficiently detailed and the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 has 0% description coverage and the only parameter is an undocumented `id`. The description implies that `id` identifies the key to revoke and provides context about key types, but it does not explicitly describe the `id` parameter format or confirm that it is the key identifier. Some meaning is added, but the parameter semantics remain mostly inferred.

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 clearly states the action ('Revoke a key'), the target resource, and the immediacy/scope ('immediately', 'Scope: keys'). It also differentiates from the sibling rotate_key by explicitly saying 'rotate it instead' for the sole live publishable key.

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 explicit when-not-to-use guidance: the only live publishable key must be rotated, not revoked, and a test key cannot revoke a live key. It names the alternative tool (rotate_key) and the error conditions that should route an agent away from this tool.

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