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

While annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, the description adds valuable behavioral specifics: 'irreversible' and 'immediately stop working,' plus the admin scope requirement. This goes beyond the annotation's binary signal and informs the agent about consequences and authorization needs.

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?

The description is two sentences with zero filler. The action is front-loaded, and the critical irreversible consequence fits naturally into the second clause. Every word 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 action with a clear schema and an output schema present, this description covers the necessary operational details: what happens, when it applies, and the access requirement. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema already documents key_id and the auth tokens. The description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('revokes') and resource ('API key'), and emphasizes permanence ('permanently revokes'). This differentiates it from siblings like create_api_key and list_api_keys without needing to open their schemas.

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?

The description specifies a key usage condition: 'Requires admin scope.' This gives clear context for when the tool is applicable, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases. The distinction from create/list is implied by the operation itself.

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