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 adds 'from MCP server memory', which clarifies the scope of the effect, but it does not state consequences such as irreversibility, whether the key is immediately invalidated, or what happens on subsequent calls.

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 one short, focused sentence that states the action, target, and memory location. There is no redundant wording or irrelevant detail.

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 simple destructive tool with fully documented parameters and clear annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could be slightly richer by explicitly pointing to brc_clear_all_company_api_keys as the multi-company alternative or noting practical consequences, but nothing critical is missing for invoking 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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the 'named company context' phrase, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Clears') and a precise resource ('API key for a named company context from MCP server memory'). It clearly indicates this is a targeted, per-company destructive action and is distinguishable from the sibling brc_clear_all_company_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?

The phrase 'for a named company context' implies this tool is for clearing one company's key rather than all keys, and the sibling brc_clear_all_company_api_keys shows the alternative. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the all-variant or when not to use it.

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