revoke_worker_keyMark a key revoked from now on. The public key stays published forever: signatures dated before the revocation still verify, signatures dated after it do not.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kid | Yes | The key identifier to revoke. | |
| reason | Yes | Why the key is being revoked. | |
| worker_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the public key remains published forever, and revocation only affects signatures dated after the revocation. This helps the agent understand the non-obvious partial-revocability semantics.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds essential nuance about verification behavior. Every clause 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 three-parameter tool with destructive annotation and no output schema, the description gives sufficient behavioral detail to invoke it correctly. It explains the permanence of the public key, the effect on signature verification, and the temporal cutoff. No critical operational context 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?
Schema descriptions cover kid and reason, but worker_id lacks a description. The tool description does not explain any parameter, so it adds no value beyond the schema. However, parameter names and formats are largely self-explanatory, and 67% coverage is moderate, so this is adequate but not outstanding.
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 action ('Mark a key revoked') on a specific resource ('a key'), and clarifies the semantic consequence: signatures before revocation verify, after do not. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like issue_worker_key, register_worker_key, and rotate_worker_key.
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 conveys the intended use: revoking a signing key so future signatures fail verification. It provides clear context about the temporal boundary. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the behavior described is distinctive enough to guide selection.
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.
Most tools target a distinct resource and action, but several adjacent pairs are easy to confuse: add_comment vs add_progress_note, call_executor vs call_integration, log_client_decision vs update_client_context vs memory_save, and list_context_sources vs list_integrations. The descriptions do disambiguate them, but the boundaries are subtle enough that misselection is likely with 81 tools.
The overwhelming majority follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_task, update_project, list_integrations, set_webhook), and get_/ list_/ create_/ update_ families are predictable. Minor deviations exist: memory_read/memory_save/memory_search invert to object_verb, and bare nouns like whoami, glossary, and security_posture break the pattern, but there is no chaotic casing or mixed conventions.
At 81 tools, this is far above the weight that is comfortable for an agent's tool-selection surface, especially since many tools belong to families that could be consolidated (webhooks, worker keys, project logs, context/memory). Although the domain is broad, the count will overwhelm agents and increase misrouting.
The surface is unusually comprehensive: tasks, projects, workers, leases, artifacts, comments, handoffs, webhooks, keys, context, memory, integrations, and support all have create/read/update/delete or equivalent lifecycle coverage. The gaps are minor, such as remove_dependency without a visible add_dependency and no artifact/comment deletion, but agents can work around them.