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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral outcome (key can no longer be used), the return value (revoked API key summary), the prerequisite call, and default account behavior. It does not detail irreversibility or authorization requirements, but covers more than the bare minimum.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds necessary context (prerequisite, targeting, return value, cost). 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 tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema (which covers return details), the description sufficiently explains prerequisites, parameter targeting, and the result. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no significant new meaning beyond what the schema provides; it merely restates the clerk_instance_id default behavior, which is already in the schema description.

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 uses a specific verb ('revoke') plus resource ('API key in a connected Clerk application') and clearly states the effect ('so it can no longer be used'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_api_key (permanent deletion) and other revoke_* operations.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Call clerk.get_connected_accounts first' and explains the clerk_instance_id parameter's behavior (target specific vs. default account). It does not explicitly mention alternatives when not to use it, but the prerequisite and scoping instructions are clear.

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