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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds impact detail beyond them: the revocation is permanent and anything using the key stops working immediately. The required user confirmation is also disclosed. It stops short of 5 only because it says nothing about error behavior for unknown or already-revoked keys.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the action, its consequence, and the confirmation requirement. The critical fact (permanent) is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, this is nearly complete: it covers action, impact timing, permanence, and the confirmation step. Only edge-case behavior for invalid or already-revoked keys is unaddressed.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains key_id comes from list_api_keys. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

"Permanently revoke an API key" is a specific verb+resource that is clearly distinct from the sibling tools create_api_key and list_api_keys. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

"Confirm with the user first" gives an explicit prerequisite workflow before invocation, which is meaningful guidance for an irreversible action. It does not name alternative tools, but none exist for this operation among the siblings, so the context is adequate.

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