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 covered. The description still adds two useful facts beyond them: the effect is immediate and an owner credential is required. It stops short of saying whether revocation is reversible or what happens to integrations using the 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 short sentences, with the action front-loaded and the prerequisite second, so nothing is buried. It is efficient, though the very terse phrasing leaves the ambiguity around 'clé propriétaire' unresolved.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the essentials of action and prerequisite are present and the annotations carry the danger signal. It is still incomplete on the points an agent would want before acting: which identifier is expected and what the caller receives back.

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 0% for the single parameter 'id', so the description must carry that burden and does not: it never states that 'id' is the identifier of the key to revoke. Worse, 'Clé propriétaire requise' could be misread as describing an additional key parameter that the schema does not define.

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 ('Révoquer ... une clé API'), which clearly separates it from create_api_key and list_api_keys in the sibling set. It is not a tautology, but the description is written in French while the tool name and title are English, adding a small parsing cost for an English-speaking agent.

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?

'Immédiatement' signals urgency and 'Clé propriétaire requise' gives a prerequisite, so usage context is implied rather than absent. However, it never says when to revoke versus rotating or leaving a key, and it does not name create_api_key or list_api_keys as the neighbouring operations.

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