Revoke the backup key

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, but the description adds the real blast radius: dependent automated jobs stop working immediately. It also discloses the not-found outcome ('Returns `code: not_found` if no key exists') and the operational trait 'Not rate-limited', none of which appear in structured fields.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its consequence, then the use case, the error case, and the alternative. No sentence is filler; the rate-limit note is short and load-bearing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description fills the remaining gaps: consequence of revocation, when to prefer rotation, error behavior, and rate-limit status. For a zero-param mutation tool, nothing an agent needs before invoking 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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema shows. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies, and the description correctly avoids inventing argument details.

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 and resource ('Revoke this account's backup key') and immediately scopes it to a single key, which separates it from sibling tools like amber_delete_account. It also names the related rotation tool, so an agent can tell revoke apart from rotate without reading either schema.

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 an explicit trigger ('Use this if a key may have leaked -- for example it was committed to a repository or pasted into a log') and names the alternative with the condition that selects it ('To rotate instead of simply revoking, call amber_create_backup_key'). When-to-use, when-to-rotate, and the sibling route are all stated.

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