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

Annotations already indicate a destructive, non-read-only operation; the description adds meaningful behavioral context: revoked keys become inactive, cannot authenticate, require scope org:manage, map to PATCH /manage-keys/{id}, and must not be called via invented paths.

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 content is useful and front-loaded, but 'Revoke an API key' is immediately restated by 'Revokes an API key'. The endpoint and scope details earn their place, though the redundancy weakens the structure.

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 simple one-parameter destructive operation, the description covers the effect, scope, API mapping, and a guard against hallucinated paths. It is nearly complete, though it does not mention the expected response or whether revocation is reversible.

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 schema fully documents the single required id parameter as a UUID API key ID, so the description does not need to repeat it. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, but 100% schema coverage makes this acceptable.

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 states a specific action and resource: revoke an API key, making it inactive and unable to authenticate. This clearly distinguishes the operation from deletion or creation, and the state transition is explicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to revoke versus delete or manage an API key, and no prerequisites or exclusions are provided. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and the first sentence.

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