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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description nonetheless adds real context: the key 'stops working immediately' and the call requires owner or org-admin authorization. It doesn't discuss re-issuance or reversibility, so not a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and effect, then identification, authorization, and the alternative tool. Every clause carries information; the doc link is appropriately placed last.

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 destructive, auth-gated tool with no output schema and fully covered parameters, the description supplies effect, identification methods, authorization, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so each parameter is already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds the practical example format (`tng_uFNWkuxQ`) and clarifies the either/or identification choice between key_prefix and key_id, plus that no kid is used here.

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 (Revoke) and resource (`tng_` REST API key) with clear scope, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling revoke_worker_key (signing keys by kid). An agent can tell it apart from related key tools without opening any schema.

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?

Names the alternative (revoke_worker_key for signing keys) and the condition selecting it, plus the authorization prerequisite (worker's owner or org admin). Also ties the key to issue_worker_key as its counterpart, leaving little to inference.

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