delete_api_key

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond them: irreversibility, immediate access revocation, and the fact that live sessions using the key can break. It stops short of stating what a repeat delete returns (given idempotentHint=false) or what permissions are required.

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, front-loaded with the action, then consequences. The closing "Returns success after revocation" is largely redundant given an output schema exists, so it is not perfectly waste-free.

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 an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the operational consequences an agent needs before calling. Only authorization prerequisites and post-delete state are left implicit.

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% — the single `id` parameter already carries a description, a UUID format, and a strict pattern. The description only restates "by UUID," adding no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Delete an API key") plus the identifier form (UUID), which is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling rotate_api_key, which is the natural alternative for invalidating a key without permanent removal.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never names rotate_api_key or update_api_key as alternatives for the common case of key compromise. The consequence sentences imply caution but do not route the agent to a safer sibling.

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