revoke_api_key

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

With no annotations, the description does disclose a real behavioral requirement — the `users:manage` permission — and the DELETE verb signals a destructive, non-read operation. It stops short of saying whether revocation is immediate, irreversible, or idempotent, and whether existing sessions using the key break.

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 action and permission requirement are front-loaded in a few short lines with no filler. The trailing 'DELETE /api/v1/...' and 'Tags: Agents' lines are routing metadata rather than agent-useful content, but they cost little.

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 tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essential prerequisite and target. Because it is an unannotated destructive operation, it should still say what a successful or failed revocation looks like, and it does not.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds nothing about `id` beyond what the schema's '(path parameter)' note implies, which is the expected baseline when the schema is complete.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Revoke A P I Key') and pins the target via the DELETE endpoint on /agents/{id}/api-key, so an agent knows exactly what is being revoked and for which agent. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling generate_api_key, leaving the create/revoke pairing implicit.

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 only guidance is the prerequisite permission `users:manage`; there is no statement of when to revoke versus regenerate (generate_api_key) or what happens if no key exists. An agent must infer the use case entirely from the tool name.

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