remove_key_replication_regions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains a significant consequence — the key becomes unusable in the removed region — and warns that in-flight PIN or ARQC traffic will fail. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the bare schema.

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 tight and well-structured: when to use, what happens, what to check first, then a clean Args block. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the most important behavioral warning is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: purpose, consequence, prerequisite check, and parameter semantics. It could add more about return values or error conditions, but it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 compensate. It does: key_identifier is explained as 'ARN or alias of the key', and replication_regions is clarified as 'Regions to remove' with a concrete example. This adds real meaning beyond the raw property names.

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 clearly identifies the operation: removing replication regions from a key, with a specific verb ('removing') and resource ('region' / 'key'). It also states the intended use case (decommissioning a region or narrowing blast radius), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like add_key_replication_regions.

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?

The description explicitly says when to call it ('when decommissioning a region or narrowing a key's blast radius') and adds a key caution about confirming nothing is still authorizing against the region. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the usage context is clear enough.

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