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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the key stops working on its next call (not instantly), that revocation is irreversible, and that confirm:false produces a no-op plus a human-facing prompt sentence. The Admin requirement and the UI equivalent are additional behavioral context the annotations do not carry.

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?

Four tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the 'Destructive:' warning, then the id format, the confirm gate, and the permission requirement. No filler; every clause carries operational meaning.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers the return behavior for the confirm:false path, the irreversible mutation semantics, and the auth requirement. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and safely.

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 description coverage is only 33% (only `project` is documented), so the description must compensate — and it does, explaining that `id` must be the exact key id from list_api_keys and that `confirm: true` is what actually triggers the revocation. It still doesn't say what happens to the key's historical usage or whether the project param accepts a slug versus an id beyond the schema's own text.

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 and resource (revokes a project key) and immediately scopes it with the consequence ('stops working on its next call and cannot be restored'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_project, revoke_project_grant, or archive_project.

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 prerequisite ('needs project Admin'), the mapping to the product UI ('Mirrors API keys › Delete'), and points at list_api_keys as the source for the id. It does not name an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use case, 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.