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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, and readOnly=false, but the description still adds real value beyond them: the effect takes hold on the next call rather than instantly, self-revocation is permitted regardless of area, cross-key revocation requires settings:write and human approval, and an owner/admin can revoke any key. The repeat-call behavior ('already revoked changes nothing') restates the idempotentHint, which is minor redundancy rather than a contradiction.

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 short clauses, each carrying a distinct fact, with the core effect front-loaded before the permission and approval detail. There is no filler and nothing a caller would need to re-read.

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, zero-required-parameter tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers effect timing, both invocation modes, authorization, the approval loop, and no-op behavior on repeat calls. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: self and key_id are alternative modes rather than free-form inputs, key_id values come from trooth_agent_keys_list, and the approval flag drives a re-invocation. Only 'workspace' is left entirely to the schema, which documents it adequately.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Revokes one agent key'), states scope ('one ... at once'), and names the observable effect ('stops working on its next call'). The resource 'agent key' plus the pointer to trooth_agent_keys_list separates it from trooth_api_key_revoke and the other key siblings without the agent needing to open a 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?

It gives explicit routing conditions: use self=true to revoke the calling key, use key_id (sourced from trooth_agent_keys_list) to revoke another key. It also states the prerequisites for the second path (settings:write plus a person's approval) and the follow-up step ('call again once approved'), so the agent knows both when to pick each path and what to do when the approval gate blocks it.

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