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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's added value is the cascade rule ("Keys it created are revoked too") and the immediate operational consequence ("Agents using it stop working right away") — exactly the kind of blast-radius information an agent needs before a destructive call. It does not address re-revoking an already-revoked key, which is relevant given idempotentHint=false.

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, no filler, with the permission scope and the cascade warning front-loaded ahead of the impact statement. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 a fully documented schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers scope, cascade and immediate effect. Only minor gaps remain (error behavior for unknown/already-revoked keys), and no output schema means return values need not be explained.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and a documented key_id pointing at list_keys/create_key, the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format hints or edge-case notes about key_id, so 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?

Specific verb+resource ("Revoke a key") that cleanly separates it from create_key, update_key and list_keys in the sibling set. The clause "a key you created (or your own)" scopes which keys are eligible, though it stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tools.

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?

Usage context is only implied: the ownership clause tells the agent it can revoke self-created or self-owned keys, which implicitly signals the permission boundary. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to update_key as the non-destructive alternative.

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