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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description adds genuinely new behavior: revocation propagates in 'about a minute' and 'cannot be restored.' The irreversibility and propagation latency are exactly the details an agent needs before committing to a destructive call.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the irreversible effect and capped by the safety instruction. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 destructive, idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the effect, the delay, the irreversibility, and the required human confirmation. Annotations carry the safety profile and the schema carries the parameters, so nothing essential 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 coverage is 100%, so both account_id and key_id are already documented in the schema (including their api_account provenance). The description adds only an indirect reference to the key's 'name and prefix' as confirmation material, no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is warranted.

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 with scope: 'Revoke one of the signed-in person's GolfCore API keys.' The action is unmistakably distinct from api_create_key, but the description never names or contrasts a sibling tool explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 concrete pre-call guidance: 'Confirm the key's name and prefix with the person before calling.' That tells the agent how to invoke responsibly, but there are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives for cases where revocation is the wrong choice.

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