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. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say revocation is permanent, whether it can be undone, or whether existing tokens die immediately — the key behavioral facts for a destructive call.

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 words with zero waste and the verb front-loaded, but the brevity crosses into under-specification for a destructive operation rather than being an efficient summary.

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 permanent, destructive mutation with an undocumented identifier parameter and no output schema, the definition supplies no return/error information and no confirmation of irreversibility. An agent could invoke it on the wrong identifier without warning.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not say whether 'id' is a key identifier or the key value itself, nor what format it takes. With a single undocumented parameter the description needed to compensate and does not.

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". An agent can tell this removes an existing key, though it does not distinguish revocation from deletion or mention the related key_create sibling by name.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no statement of what happens after revocation (immediate invalidation?) and no alternatives such as deleting versus disabling a key. The agent must infer everything from the verb alone.

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