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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that deletion is permanent, that anything still using the key fails immediately (blast radius), and that the user must be consulted plus a special warning about self-revocation. These are operational consequences an agent cannot infer from destructiveHint=true alone.

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-loaded with the operation, then consequence, then safety rule. No filler or repetition of annotation data.

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-required-parameter destructive tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, irreversibility, impact, and required user confirmation. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already says the ID comes from list_api_keys. The description's only addition is 'by ID', which adds no syntax or format detail; baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 an API key by ID') and immediately clarifies the effect is a permanent deletion, which distinguishes it from the sibling create_api_key and from non-destructive operations. An agent can identify the operation and its consequence 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?

Gives explicit procedural guidance: confirm with the user first, and explicitly flag the case of revoking the session's own key. It does not name an alternative tool, but for a destructive singleton there is no meaningful alternative to route to, so the guidance is close to complete.

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