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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the self-revocation restriction, but says nothing about whether revocation is permanent/irreversible, what permissions are required, or what error results if the id is unknown or already revoked.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the core action comes first and the constraint second.

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-param destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and one notable edge case, but omits irreversibility, permissions, and failure behavior, leaving meaningful gaps.

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%, so the schema does not define keyId. The phrase "by id" identifies the parameter's meaning at a minimal level, but adds no format, source, or constraint detail beyond that.

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 specific verb+resource ("Revoke a key by id"), which an agent can distinguish from create_api_key and list_api_keys without opening schemas. It doesn't explicitly call out sibling alternatives by name, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Provides an implied usage rule plus one hard constraint: the key authenticating the current connection cannot revoke itself. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to alternatives (e.g., list_api_keys to find the id first).

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