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 main job is to add detail beyond that. 'Immediately' usefully signals there is no grace period or delayed propagation, but it omits whether revocation is permanent, whether a revoked key can be restored, and whether in-flight requests using the key are affected.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than tight writing.

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 an irreversible destructive mutation with no output schema, the description should say what gets destroyed, whether the action is permanent, and what the identifier refers to. None of that is present, leaving key operational questions unanswered despite the annotations covering only the safety flag.

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% and the single parameter keyId has no description anywhere. The description does not explain the identifier format (key ID vs. key value), which is exactly the ambiguity that would cause a failed call.

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 specific verb (revokes) and resource (API key), which cleanly separates it from apikey_create and apikey_list in the key-management family. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the name plus description leave no ambiguity about the operation.

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 regenerate or rotate a key, no prerequisites (e.g., ownership/permission requirements), and no mention of siblings such as apikey_create for replacement. The agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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