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

Goes beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by spelling out the concrete effect ("calls made with it stop working") and the irreversibility ("cannot be undone"), and adds an authorization requirement ("Requires api_keys:write") that annotations do not carry. This is exactly the extra context a mutation tool needs.

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 front-loading the action and consequence before the usage constraint. No filler, and the most decision-relevant facts (irreversibility, permission) come early.

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?

Single required parameter, full schema coverage, rich annotations, no output schema to explain. Effects, authorization, and input sourcing are all covered; nothing an agent needs in order 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 coverage is 100% and the property description already says "a UUID from list_api_keys," so the description's provenance note largely restates structured data. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (model API key) scoped by id, which cleanly separates it from create_api_key and list_api_keys in the sibling set. The consequence clause reinforces exactly what the operation does.

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?

Explicit invocation condition ("only when the user asks to revoke a key") plus the prerequisite workflow for obtaining the argument ("get the key_id from list_api_keys"). That is a when-to-use, a when-not-to-use implication, and a pointer to the sibling that supplies input.

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