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

Goes well past the annotations: the annotations only flag destructive/non-idempotent, while the description discloses that the previous key stops working, that the new secret is returned exactly once, and that it is unrecoverable after the response. Those are the exact facts an agent needs to avoid destroying its own credentials.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the return value, then the required scope, then the irreversibility warning. Every sentence carries a distinct, actionable fact.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so: it describes the returned secret's shape (gk_live_), its one-time availability, and the required post-call workflow. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The only input-like information given is the required api:account scope, which is a useful addition.

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 precise verb and resource ('Revoke the API key this session is using') plus the side effect of returning a new gk_live_ secret. No sibling tool touches credentials, so differentiation is trivially clear.

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 the precondition ('requires api:account') and prescribes the follow-up workflow (store the new key in the secret manager, reconnect with it). It does not name when-not-to-use or an alternative path, but no plausible alternative exists among the siblings.

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