deauthorize_ssh_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the primary effect (revoking login access) and implies the key remains but is no longer authorized. However, it does not disclose reversibility, impact on existing sessions, or permission requirements, which is a minor gap for a simple revoke operation.

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 a single sentence, perfectly front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains zero redundant words. It is highly concise while remaining informative.

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 simple one-parameter tool with a complete schema and clear description, the description adequately covers the purpose and effect. It could mention the distinction from delete_ssh_key to avoid ambiguity, but this is not essential given the low complexity.

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 covers the single parameter 'name' with a description ('Key name to deauthorize'), and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Deauthorize') and a clear resource ('SSH key'), and adds the clarifying phrase '(revoke login access)' which makes the intended action unambiguous. This distinguishes it from related tools like authorize_ssh_key and delete_ssh_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 implies usage for revoking SSH login access but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as delete_ssh_key or state when to choose one over the other. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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