revoke_api_keyRevoke one of this account's API keys immediately. Any terminal or assistant using it stops working at once. Revoking the key you are calling with ends this session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key_id | Yes | From list_api_keys. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the effect is immediate, all users of the key stop working at once, and revoking the current key ends the session. This is exactly the kind of consequential behavior an agent needs to know.
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?
Three short sentences with no filler. The most important information (immediate revocation, consequences, self-revocation warning) is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.
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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It explains the action, the immediacy, the impact on users, and the special case of revoking the calling key. The parameter source is covered by the schema.
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 coverage is 100% and the key_id parameter is documented as 'From list_api_keys.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but with full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Revoke') and resource ('API key'), and immediately clarifies scope ('this account's API keys'). The description distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_api_key and list_api_keys by clearly indicating this is the invalidation action.
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 clearly establishes when to use this tool: when an API key must be invalidated immediately. It also warns about the self-revocation case, which is a key usage caveat. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the intended context is clear enough for a simple destructive operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tool purposes are generally distinct and well-described, but a few clusters overlap in function: answer_screening_question vs save_answer both write to the answer book, get_my_profile vs get_account both report plan status, and the CV preview/sent-CV/base-CV tools could be confused. The detailed descriptions mitigate most misselection, so this is only a minor issue.
The set almost uniformly uses snake_case verb_noun names like list_, get_, update_, create_, delete_, and start_/stop_. Minor deviations such as login, describe_what_i_want, and the get_my_* vs list_* alternation prevent a perfect score, but the overall pattern is predictable and readable.
49 tools is far above the 25+ threshold and will burden agent tool selection even though many are legitimate single-purpose operations. Several groups could be consolidated—billing links, API-key management, and the CV PDF family—without hurting clarity.
The surface covers the full lifecycle: account creation/auth, profile and CV, targeting, matching, apply runs, screening answers, tracking, billing, export, and deletion. Minor gaps remain, such as no application-level detail/withdrawal endpoint and no direct way to save a parsed CV without re-uploading, but agents can work around them.