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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well by disclosing immediate effect, irreversibility, and owner-only authorization. It could add more about confirmation or response behavior, but the critical traits are present.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. Every clause adds useful behavioral context without repetition.

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 revoke tool, the description covers purpose, authorization, and irreversibility well. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and both parameters undocumented in the schema, it leaves the optional 'reason' parameter and invocation details unclear.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters, but it only implies a key identifier through 'named agent key' and never mentions the optional 'reason' parameter. It compensates only partially for the schema gap.

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 verb and resource: revoke a named agent key. The owner-only scope and explicit 'agent key' phrasing distinguish it from related connection-revocation tools such as keys_revokeConnection.

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?

It clearly states an owner-only restriction and warns that the action is immediate and irreversible, with 'make a new key instead' as the recommended alternative. It does not explicitly point to keys_list for finding the key ID, but the context is otherwise clear.

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