Revoke this API key (kill switch)

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

Goes beyond the annotations by spelling out consequences: the action is irreversible, the specific credential (CARPE_API_KEY) is destroyed, and every subsequent call with it fails. It also discloses the exact confirmation token required, which is the kind of safety-relevant behavior an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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 with the most critical warning ('IRREVERSIBLE') front-loaded, followed by consequence, then authorization condition and input requirement. No filler and nothing buried.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers irreversibility, blast radius, authorization criteria, and the required confirmation value. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and how.

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% and the single 'confirm' parameter is already constrained to the literal 'REVOKE' with its own description. The description repeats the required value, adding only the implication that the token is a deliberate-intent safeguard, which is marginal beyond the schema.

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 ('permanently revokes the API key this server uses') and names the exact key variable CARPE_API_KEY, making it unmistakable among the many read/usage siblings. The '(kill switch)' framing in the title is reinforced in the description rather than merely restated.

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?

Gives an explicit gating condition: use only if the user explicitly asks or the key leaked. It does not name an alternative tool, but there is no sibling that performs revocation, so the guidance is functionally complete without a routing pointer.

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