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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description goes beyond them by stating the effect is immediate, irreversible ('cannot be undone'), and gated behind 2FA and an authenticated Proof account. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs before committing to an irreversible mutation.

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?

Well front-loaded: effect and irreversibility come first, then the procedural 2FA steps, then access. The numbered steps and ACCESS paragraph are slightly verbose but each earns its place given the prerequisite complexity.

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 an irreversible mutation with a mandatory multi-step 2FA dance, the description covers effect, reversibility, ordering, and authentication. No output schema exists, and none is needed for a revoke operation, so nothing material is left unstated.

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% for the single required 'id' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no format or sourcing guidance beyond what the schema states, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Revoke an API key by ID') and the immediate consequence ('The key will immediately stop working'). It is easily distinguished from siblings like create_api_key, regenerate_api_key, and list_api_keys.

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 an explicit, ordered precondition flow (start_2fa → user verify → poll get_2fa_status → revoke) plus the account/authentication requirement. What is missing is sibling-level routing: it never contrasts this with regenerate_api_key, which is the natural near-neighbor an agent might otherwise choose.

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