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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds genuinely new context by stating the action is irreversible, which is stronger than 'destructive'. It could have also noted the idempotentHint=true nuance (repeated calls on a revoked key do not error), but the irreversibility warning is the key fact.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the destructive warning front-loaded immediately after the action statement. Every clause 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 single-parameter destructive operation whose annotations already cover the safety profile and whose parameter is fully documented, the description supplies the one missing behavioral fact (irreversibility). Nothing critical is absent, though recovery options or a 'revoke vs rotate' note would add polish.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% ('The ID of the API key to revoke'), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no format, source, or validation detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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) with a parenthetical synonym (delete) and a concrete resource (API key), so an agent can distinguish it from create_api_key and list_api_keys. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the verb alone differentiates the operation clearly.

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?

Usage is implied by the action name: call this to revoke a key. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to list_api_keys for finding a key_id, and no stated preconditions (ownership, admin scope).

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