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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses the key consequence: requests using the key stop working immediately. It also adds idempotence, telling agents repeated calls are safe. It doesn't detail response or error behavior, but the core risk is covered.

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 sentences front-load the action and then add only high-value behavior: immediate effect and idempotence. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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 action, the description covers what is revoked, when it takes effect, and repeated-call safety. It omits output or error semantics, but the tool is simple enough that an agent can invoke it correctly from this text.

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?

The input schema already fully describes api_key_id with 100% coverage, so the baseline applies. The description adds a small ownership constraint—the key must belong to the authenticated account—but otherwise contributes no additional parameter detail.

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 opening verb 'Revoke' with the object 'API keys' states the exact operation, and 'authenticated account's' scopes it to the caller's own keys. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling create/bind/get/set key tools even without naming them.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given; it never says to use create_api_key for issuing a key or contrasts with set_key_budget/bind_key. The only implied context is that revocation is for invalidating an existing key, which an agent must infer.

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