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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description builds on that with real operational context: the ownership boundary, the three categories that cannot be revoked, and the confirmation gate. The 'DESTRUCTIVE' callout with the confirmation instruction is exactly the behavioral guidance a mutation tool needs.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler. The destructive warning and call to action are front-loaded, followed by eligibility limits, so the highest-risk information is read first.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ownership scope, confirmation workflow, and hard exclusions; idempotency and safety profile are carried by annotations. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the important distinction that key_id is the resource UUID rather than the pst_live_ secret. The description reinforces the confirmation requirement but adds no new syntax, format, or constraint information beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb ('Revoke') plus resource ('API key') and adds scope ('owned by the authenticated user'), which cleanly separates it from create_api_key and other key-management siblings. An agent knows immediately this is key revocation, not secret rotation or general deletion.

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?

Gives explicit when-not conditions: cannot revoke the key authenticating the current request, OAuth-issued keys, or managed assistant keys. It also prescribes the pre-call workflow ('show the user the exact key ID/prefix/name... and get explicit confirmation'), leaving nothing to inference about eligibility or sequencing.

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