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 meaningful context beyond that: the operational consequence of revocation and the owner/admin authorization requirement.

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 its consequence, with sourcing and permission details following. No filler and every sentence 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?

For a destructive, idempotent tool with no output schema, the description covers consequence, sourcing, and authorization, and annotations cover reversibility semantics via destructive/idempotent hints. It could note whether the revoked key can be recovered, but nothing essential to correct invocation 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% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds navigation value the schema lacks by naming the exact field path (api.active_keys) within get_org_security where key_id is found. That is a small but genuinely actionable addition for sourcing the parameter.

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) and resource (organization API key), and the immediate consequence ('Apps that use it stop working') makes the action unambiguous. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings create_org_api_key and get_org_security without opening any 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?

Gives two concrete pieces of guidance: where to source key_id ('from get_org_security (api.active_keys)') and the permission prerequisite ('Only an owner or an admin can do this'). It does not state explicit when-not-to-use conditions or name an alternative action, so it falls 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.