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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the effect timing ('disconnected on its next call') and the blast radius ('every other key keeps working', self-revocation kills your own session). It does not clarify whether the key is deleted vs merely disabled, which is the one remaining ambiguity.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, then consequences. No filler; each clause about blast radius or self-revocation earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover reversibility and side effects. The description supplies impact scope and timing, leaving only the delete-vs-disable distinction unsettled — minor for a correctly-callable tool.

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%, including an unusually detailed note on the optional 'why' parameter, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only reinforces where 'id' comes from (key_list) and says nothing about 'why'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (revoke), a specific resource (one key on your account), and the id source (key_list). It is trivially distinguishable from the sibling key_list, which enumerates rather than removes.

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?

Points the agent at key_list to obtain the id and warns about the self-revocation case ('Revoking your own key (current) disconnects you'), which effectively tells the agent when this call is risky. No explicit 'do not use when' beyond that, but the routing to the sibling is clear.

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