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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows it's destructive. However, the description adds no additional behavioral insights beyond 'Authenticated tool'. It does not mention that revocation is irreversible, that the key becomes immediately invalid, or any side effects like terminating active sessions. The description fails to leverage the opportunity to provide context beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), which is efficient but at the cost of essential information. It could include more detail without becoming verbose, so it is under-informative rather than optimally concise.

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 simplicity (one parameter, destructive, no output schema), the description should cover the parameter meaning, the irreversible nature, and the result. It fails to provide this, making it insufficient for safe and correct usage. The sibling context shows many related tools, but the description does not aid differentiation.

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 input schema has one required parameter 'apiKeyId' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the parameter, e.g., what an API key ID is, how to obtain it, or its format. Without this information, the agent cannot correctly select or invoke the tool.

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 the verb 'revoke' and the resource 'API key', clearly indicating the tool's action. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'create_api_key' and 'list_api_keys' which perform different operations. However, it could be more explicit about the scope (e.g., which API key is affected) and the effect (key becomes invalid).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'create_api_key', 'list_api_keys'). It only mentions 'Authenticated tool', implying authentication is required, but does not specify prerequisites or exclusions. Lack of context on when to revoke vs. other key management operations.

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