Remove an API key

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it removes 'including its Vault secret', providing context on what gets destroyed beyond the annotation. It also states 'Permanently remove', reinforcing the irreversibility. This adds value beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentence with high information density. It front-loads the destructive and idempotent nature, and the scope. No wasted words.

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?

Given the schema fully describes parameters, annotations cover safety, and no output schema exists, the description adequately covers what the tool does and its consequences. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication) but those are implied by 'authenticated project'. It is complete for a destructive mutation tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, except that 'keyId' is a pooled BYOK key UUID from list_byok_keys (already in schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('remove'), a precise resource ('pooled BYOK credential by key id'), and the scope ('from the authenticated project'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like add_byok_key and test_byok_key by naming the operation and the destructive nature.

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 labels the operation as destructive and idempotent, and mentions it removes a BYOK credential. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., when a key is still in use) or name alternatives. The clear destructive label provides sufficient guidance for an agent to avoid misuse, but not full exclusion guidance.

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