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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description earns credit for going further: it explains the concrete blast radius (all requests fail from now on, including the app or script it was issued for). It stops short of stating explicitly that the operation is irreversible and cannot be undone, which would be the final detail for a destructive tool.

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 with the destructive action front-loaded and the confirmation requirement last, which is a sensible order for a safety-relevant call. No filler.

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 full annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, consequence, and the human-confirmation prerequisite. Only the explicit irreversibility/rotation caveat 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 single parameter already documents its provenance ("From list_api_keys"). The description adds no meaning about api_key_id beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

"Delete an API key" states a specific verb and resource, making it clearly distinct from create_api_key and list_api_keys in the sibling set. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the intent is unambiguous without opening the 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?

Adds an actionable precondition, "Confirm with the user first," which tells the agent how to gate the call. It does not address alternatives such as rotating a key instead of revoking it, so the when-not guidance is thin.

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