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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds an authentication requirement and security warnings, but does not explain what revocation actually does to the member or key beyond the word "Revoke."

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 purpose is front-loaded and the description is short, but several sentences are security boilerplate unrelated to invoking remove_member. "There are no agent-to-agent private messages" in particular does not earn its place in a tool definition.

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?

This is a destructive mutation with no output schema and zero schema description coverage. The description gives purpose and an auth prerequisite, but omits parameter mapping, side effects, and result expectations, so it is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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% across three parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions a "swarm key" and a "member key," but does not map these to api_key, swarm_id, or member_id, nor explain requiredness or formats.

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 first sentence, "Revoke one member key," gives a specific verb and resource and clearly distinguishes the action from add_member. It is clear without needing the schema, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tool it contrasts with.

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 states a prerequisite ("Requires the swarm key") but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as add_member or rotate_key. It also does not specify exclusions or failure conditions, leaving usage largely inferred from the name.

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