Revoke a management key

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — revocation is immediate, with no grace period — but says nothing about permanence, whether an already-revoked key errors, or whether in-flight requests using the key start failing right away.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the urgency qualifier first and zero filler. It is efficient but arguably too terse for a destructive operation, leaving no room for the one or two clauses that would have made it actionable.

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?

Complexity is low (single required parameter, no output schema, rich annotations), so the description does not need to explain return values. Still, for an irreversible destructive tool it omits the practical consequences an agent should know: that revocation cannot be undone and what happens when the key id is unknown or already revoked.

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 0%, but the schema itself constrains key_id to a UUID with an explicit pattern, which carries most of the meaning. The description's "by id" adds nothing beyond that — it does not say whether the id comes from list_api_keys or how to obtain it.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("revoke a management key") scoped by id, which cleanly separates it from list_api_keys, create_api_key, and rotate_publishable_key in the sibling set. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead when the goal is rotation rather than revocation, so it lands just below the top mark.

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?

"Immediately" hints at urgency (e.g., compromised key) but the description never states when to revoke versus rotate or delete, nor any prerequisites such as ownership or admin scope. The agent must infer the selection logic entirely from the verb.

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