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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond that by stating the effect is 'permanent and immediate', clarifying that the action is irreversible rather than a soft disable (contrast with chirpie_deactivate_account). No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the action front-loaded before the permanence warning. 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 one-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies what structured fields cannot: permanence and immediacy. It omits any return/confirmation behavior and routing to sibling key tools, which keeps it just under complete.

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 single 'id' parameter is fully described in the schema. The description's 'by its ID' merely restates that, adding no format, source, or validation detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (Chirpie API key) plus the lookup key (ID), which is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling chirpie_remove_x_keys, so it falls short of a 5.

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 nothing about when to revoke versus using chirpie_remove_x_keys, chirpie_delete_comment, or other destructive siblings, and gives no preconditions (e.g., ownership or confirmation). Usage must be inferred entirely 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.