Revoke API key

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'cannot be undone' and 'immediate' effects. It adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the immediate and irreversible nature, plus the server-lockout consequence for the configured key. No contradiction between description and annotations.

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 core action, and every clause earns its place. The warning about server lockout is critical and concise. No wasted words or redundant restatement of the title.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral aspects: immediacy, irreversibility, and consequences. It doesn't mention return values, but for a revoke operation that's less critical than the warning content it does provide. The mutation-tool burden is well met by the warning guidance.

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 67%, which is decent but not complete. The description defines key_id ('by key id') but adds nothing about project_id or idempotency_key beyond what the schema provides. The schema describes all three parameters adequately, and the description focuses on the key_id semantics, so it earns the baseline given moderate coverage.

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 it revokes an API key by key id, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling revoke tools (revoke_personal_token, revoke_team_invite, revoke_migration_token), but the pairing with list_api_keys and create_api_key makes the targeting reasonably clear.

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 explicitly states when to use — only after user confirms revocation — and gives a strong exclusion/warning: revoking the server's own key locks the server out. This is excellent guidance that prevents harmful misuse. It clearly signals this is a destructive, irreversible action requiring user confirmation.

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