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

Since there are no annotations, the description is responsible for behavioral details. Stating the action is 'Free' is a behavioral trait, but it fails to disclose crucial operational behaviors such as immediate access invalidation, required permissions for revocation, or potential failure modes.

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?

The description is perfectly concise. It delivers the essential purpose and a key operational detail ('Free') in two short, efficient sentences without any unnecessary fluff.

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?

While it is functionally clear how to call the tool once the `key_id` is known, the overall definition is weak. A revocation tool requires more contextual information regarding potential security implications and necessary authorization levels to be truly complete.

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?

The input schema is simple, and the description adds zero semantic value to the required `key_id`. It gives no indication of the format or nature of the ID (e.g., UUID, alphanumeric token), which is critical for a mutation tool.

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 clearly states the action (revoke) and the resource (API key). While it doesn't name the specific sibling it is replacing (like a list sibling), it successfully identifies the unique purpose of this tool.

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 description provides no guidance on when this tool should be used relative to others. There is no context provided about requiring a prior listing (e.g., using `fikra_list_api_keys`) or any prerequisites for the revocation.

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