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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavioral details: existing tokens keep working for 30 minutes, new tokens are refused, the action is irreversible, and it is restricted to workspace owners. This adds substantial context about the partial effect and authorization requirements of the operation.

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 four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the most important behavioral caveats. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 single-parameter destructive tool whose annotations already declare destructive and idempotent behavior, the description provides the critical missing context: token expiry, refusal of new tokens, irreversibility, and owner-only access. No output schema exists, but the description is sufficient for correct 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 coverage is 100%, and the key_id parameter is already documented as coming from list_keys or create_key. The description does not add further meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Revoke a map key." This is clearly distinct from sibling operations such as create_key, list_keys, and set_key_origins because it names a unique destructive action on a key.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose and by the prerequisites "Workspace owner only" and "Irreversible," but the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as list_keys or set_key_origins. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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