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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses permanence, the immediate 401 effect on future calls, the release of any held lock (with an analogy to aanet_release_lock), and the scope (only the targeted sub-key). This is rich, non-obvious context that an agent needs to invoke safely and predictably.

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 two focused paragraphs. The first sentence states the core purpose and effect, immediately followed by usage guidance and the owner_key prerequisite. The second paragraph adds the lock-release side effect, which is essential for understanding the tool's full impact. No word is wasted, and the most critical information 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?

Given no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, side effects (lock release), and the authentication requirement. It does not describe the response format or error cases beyond the 401 for revoked keys, but for a destructive operation this is reasonably complete. An agent can invoke it correctly with the information provided.

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%, so all three parameters (api_key, subkey_id, workspace_id) already have detailed explanations in the schema. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides; it mentions 'Owner_key required' but that is already implied by the schema's api_key description. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the verb ('Permanently revoke'), the resource ('one sub-agent's credentials'), and the precise effect ('every subsequent call with that key gets a 401'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like aanet_update_subkey (which likely modifies rather than revokes) and aanet_mint_subkey (which creates) by emphasizing permanence and scoping to a single sub-key.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when a sub-agent is compromised, misbehaving, or simply finished', and clarifies that it does not affect other sub-keys. It also notes the prerequisite 'Owner_key required'. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for temporary disablement, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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