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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing that the key stops working immediately, that the response body is an empty object, and that a full_access key is required. These are real behavioral facts an agent cannot infer from destructiveHint/idempotentHint alone.

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 lines, front-loaded with the action and the immediate effect, then the auth requirement, then the API mapping. No sentence is filler.

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?

Covers effect, return value, and auth requirement for a one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema. It leaves out what happens to existing requests in flight or whether the id must belong to the caller's tenant, but the essentials are present.

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 0% and the single required `id` is documented only through the `DELETE /api-keys/{id}` path template. That maps the parameter to its role, but the description never says it's the API key's UUID identifier distinct from tenant/domain ids.

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+resource ('Delete an API key') and is unmistakable against siblings like list_api_keys and create_api_key. The added endpoint and operationId confirm the exact resource being destroyed.

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 makes the prerequisite explicit ('Requires a full_access API key'), which is the key gating condition for calling it. It does not name alternatives (e.g., rotate vs. delete, or create_api_key for replacement), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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