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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful post-condition beyond the annotations: the platform falls back to its own model access, which tells the agent the effect is a configuration revert rather than data loss.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the primary action front-loaded and the consequence second. Every sentence earns its place.

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-param destructive tool with no output schema, the description plus rich annotations cover action, selectivity, idempotency, and the resulting state. It stops short of noting reversibility (whether the key can be re-added) or permission requirements, but nothing essential 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?

Single required 'provider' parameter with 100% schema description coverage and an enum of allowed values, so the schema carries the full specification. The description adds no provider-specific detail or constraint, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb ('Remove') and precise resource ('BYOK provider key'), which cleanly separates it from sibling counterparts set_byok_key and get_byok_keys. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

The description says what happens after removal but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., admin scope), and no reference to alternatives such as set_byok_key for rotating a key. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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