revoke_contentpilot_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the required scope (cms:manage), but says nothing about irreversibility of the revocation, what happens to integrations or traffic using the revoked Pull API key, or whether the action can be undone — significant gaps for a destructive 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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the permission requirement second. It is efficient, though its terseness is under-specification rather than optimal density.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a single-parameter destructive tool with no annotations, however, the description omits effects of revocation and reversibility, leaving an agent with only the action and the permission requirement.

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 0% for the single project_id parameter, so the description must compensate and largely does not. The phrase 'the project's Pull API key' only loosely ties project_id to key ownership and adds no format, ID semantics, or requiredness detail beyond what the schema already shows.

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 a specific resource (the project's Pull API key), so the agent can distinguish it from create_contentpilot_key and get_contentpilot_key_status without opening a schema. It stops short of naming those siblings, so it lands just below the top band.

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 stated precondition 'Requires cms:manage' gives useful context for whether the caller can invoke it, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to create_contentpilot_key or get_contentpilot_key_status, and no exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the verb.

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