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 meaningful context beyond that: the consequence is immediate breakage of any live integration and a user-confirmation gate. It does not say whether revocation is reversible or how to recover a mistakenly deleted key.

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 sentences, zero waste, and the consequence/confirmation requirement is front-loaded where an agent will see it before acting.

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 destructive three-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential risk and the confirmation gate. Minor gaps remain around reversibility and the workspace_id default, which the schema states but the description never reinforces.

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 schema already documents id, confirm, and workspace_id thoroughly. The description reinforces the confirm requirement but adds no syntax, ID-source, or workspace-scoping detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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+resource ('Revoke an API key') and clarifies that delete means revoke, which is more precise than the tool name alone. It is clearly distinguishable from read-side siblings such as get_api_keys and get_api_key_refresh_link.

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 a clear precondition — explicit user confirmation is required before calling — which frames when this tool is appropriate. It does not name alternatives (e.g., listing keys first with get_api_keys) or state when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a full 5.

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