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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds valuable context: immediate revocation, irreversibility, auth requirement, and the JSON response shape. No contradiction with annotations; the extra detail goes well beyond the structured hints.

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 core behavior and effect, followed by usage guidance, exclusions, and return format. Every sentence carries necessary information with no redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers return fields, id source, destructive consequences, idempotency, and authentication needs. An agent has everything required to invoke it correctly.

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 api_key_id parameter is described. The description adds meaningful guidance by stating ids come from list_api_keys and that the key is identified by id, which helps an agent know how to supply the parameter correctly.

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 one API key by id, with an immediate effect. The description clearly distinguishes this from related tools like create_api_key, list_api_keys, and configure_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?

Provides explicit conditions for use: when a key leaked or a service is retired. It also names alternative behavior with configure_key for pausing, and warns against revoking the calling key without a backup, leaving no ambiguity.

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