revoke_agent_key

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

Despite having no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavioral traits: it is irreversible, causes immediate auth failure for calls using the key, and requires a developer key. This covers destructive nature, side effects, and prerequisites, which is more than sufficient for a tool with no structured 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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: the action, the immediate effect, the irreversibility, the alternative, and the required credential. 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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all essential contextual information: what it does, the consequence, the alternative, and the permission requirement. The agent can confidently decide when to use it and what to expect.

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 provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters ('Key id to revoke.' and 'Numeric agent id.'). The description does not need to add parameter details, and it doesn't, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Revoke (delete) an agent API key') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'rotate_agent_key' by explicitly mentioning the alternative for keeping the agent running.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Irreversible — rotate_agent_key instead if the agent should keep running.' This directly contrasts with a relevant sibling, telling the agent exactly when to choose the alternative. The immediate auth failure also conveys a practical consequence.

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