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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds materially more: the recursive reach into child keys, that all of them stop authenticating immediately, the irreversibility, and the required privilege level. That is the kind of consequence disclosure a destructive tool 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?

Three dense clauses with zero filler, ordered by what the agent must know first (permission), then effect (recursive, immediate), then consequence (irreversible). 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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and full safety annotations, the description covers authorization, blast radius, timing of effect, and irreversibility — everything needed to call it safely. Nothing material 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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its source (list_api_keys). The description adds no syntax or format detail about api_key_id, so baseline 3 applies; the cascade information is about tool scope, not the parameter itself.

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 (revokes) and resource (API key) plus the recursive scope, which clearly separates it from regenerate_api_key, delete_agent and other mutation siblings. An agent can identify this as the destructive key-removal tool without opening the 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 the precondition up front ('Requires the admin scope or higher') and points at list_api_keys as the place the id comes from, plus created_by_key_id to preview the cascade. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use vs regenerate_api_key, but the context is clear.

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