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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is known. The description goes beyond them by spelling out the destructive consequence ('Запрет сразу отзывает его ключи') and the resulting key scope — the member sees only granted folders via API v3, within their role, while billing, members, keys and integrations are closed. Permissions needed to invoke the tool and the effect on active sessions are not covered.

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 dense sentences with the purpose front-loaded in sentence one. The middle sentences about key scope are informative rather than redundant, though the block is longer than strictly necessary for a 5-parameter tool with fully documented parameters.

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 non-idempotent, destructive mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the essential picture: what is granted/revoked, the immediate effect of denial on existing keys, and where the actual secret originates. It omits only invocation prerequisites and failure/confirmation behavior, which is minor given annotations and full schema coverage.

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%, and the schema already documents until/enabled/revoke_keys semantics in detail (including null = indefinite and omitted = unchanged). The description adds only the general notion of setting a term, so the schema does the heavy lifting — baseline 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?

The opening sentence states a precise verb pair and resource: 'Разрешает или запрещает участнику личный API-ключ для этого аккаунта (ключ участника) и задаёт срок.' This is clearly distinguishable from sibling member-management tools (set_workspace_member_role, set_workspace_member_folders, remove_workspace_member), which act on roles, folders, and membership rather than API key access.

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?

Usage context is clear (grant/deny a member's API key, revoke on compromise) and it adds an implicit exclusion: the key secret itself is issued by the member in the cabinet or via API and is never shown in the assistant, so an agent should not expect this tool to return a key. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling tools or stating prerequisites (e.g. required admin permission).

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