Delete API key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only implies destruction via "Revoke." It does not say whether the key is hard-deleted or disabled, whether permission scoping is required, or what happens to active sessions using that key.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently structured, though the terseness leaves room for one or two more high-value sentences.

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?

A destructive credential-revocation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs to spell out irreversibility and side effects. The description covers only the basic action, leaving the agent without the safety context this operation demands.

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 80%; the connection-override parameters (panel, baseUrl, clientKey, applicationKey) are already documented in the schema. The description only confirms that `identifier` is the target selector, which the required-fields list already signals, so it adds little beyond structured data.

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?

Specific verb ("Revoke") plus resource ("client API key") plus the lookup key ("by its identifier") clearly separate it from account_apikey_list and account_apikey_create. It stops short of stating whether application keys (ptla_) are also covered, so it is clear but not airtight.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus listing keys first, no prerequisites, and no note that revocation is irreversible or affects clients currently authenticating with the key. The agent must infer all usage context from the name alone.

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