Revoke org API key

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

The description adds the ownership restriction ('Owner only') beyond the annotations, which already include destructiveHint. It does not detail side effects of revocation, but the destructive hint covers the main behavioral trait. No contradiction with 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 extremely concise—two short sentences—and both carry meaningful information. No filler words or redundant content.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description omits any context about the optional org_id parameter or the consequences of revocation. The destructiveHint mitigates some need, but the org_id ambiguity remains, making it a basic but incomplete description.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters beyond 'by id', which maps to key_id. The org_id parameter is unaccounted for, and the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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) and the resource (API key) by id. The title 'Revoke org API key' aligns with sibling tools like apikey_create and apikey_list, making its purpose distinct among the sibling set.

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 implicitly indicates usage (when you need to revoke an API key) and adds an explicit constraint ('Owner only'). It doesn't mention alternatives, but the directness provides clear context and no exclusions are stated.

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