code-fundi-disable-api-key

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds valuable context that disabling the active key does not rotate it unless that specific key is disabled, which is a nuanced behavior beyond the annotation. It could have mentioned reversibility or permission requirements, but the rotation caveat is a significant addition.

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, front-loaded with the action and endpoint, followed by a useful sibling reference and a behavioral caution. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with annotations and schema, the description is fully sufficient. It explains what the tool does, how to find the key, and the rotation behavior. No output schema exists, so no return-value explanation is needed.

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 100% coverage for the single parameter, including its type and description. The description's reference to 'by UUID' is redundant with the schema. No additional parameter semantics are provided, so the baseline 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 clearly states the tool's action ('Disable a Code-Fundi API key by UUID') and specifies the HTTP endpoint. It distinguishes itself from siblings like code-fundi-list-api-keys and code-fundi-regenerate-api-key by explicitly focusing on disabling.

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 explicit guidance to use code-fundi-list-api-keys to find key IDs before disabling, and warns about rotation behavior. This gives clear context for when to use the tool and directs to a sibling for prerequisite steps.

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