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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description enumerates concrete consequences: immediate 401 on the key, deletion of webhook endpoints it created with no further deliveries, and removal of an undelivered key from its handoff. It also specifies the 404 outcome for unknown or already-revoked partners, which the annotations cannot convey.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the three side effects, then the error case. No filler and nothing buried.

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, single-parameter mutation with an output schema, the key gaps an agent would care about—consequences, idempotency-ish 404 on already-revoked, and error code—are covered. Missing only authorization/permission requirements and whether the effects are recoverable, which is mildly implied by destructiveHint but never stated.

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% with a single `partner` string already documented as "Partner id, e.g. soukbase", so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, naming, or lookup details beyond what the schema supplies.

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?

"Revoke the partner's grant" gives a specific verb and resource, and the qualifier "(merchant key only)" narrows the grant type so the agent won't confuse it with other grant manipulation such as rotate_key or grants_list.

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?

The revocation scenario is implied and the 404 clause tells the agent what happens on a bad target, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance (e.g. use rotate_key if the intent is to reissue rather than revoke) and no stated prerequisites.

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