revoke_api_key

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description goes well beyond them: it states the effect is immediate, that it is irreversible, that 2FA is mandatory, and which account/session state is required. That is rich behavioral disclosure that changes how an agent plans the call.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and irreversibility, then clearly labeled "Agent usage" and "ACCESS" blocks. The auth flow is worth its length, though the generic server-level ACCESS paragraph (env var setup, restart) reads as boilerplate that may be repeated across every tool in this server.

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 this covers purpose, irreversibility, and the full 2FA/auth prerequisite chain. The only omission is any indication of what a successful revoke returns, which is minor given the absence of an output schema.

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?

There is a single parameter (id) whose schema description coverage is 100% ("API key ID to revoke"). The description's "by ID" adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (revoke), resource (API key), and lookup key (by ID), then immediately clarifies the effect: the key stops working at once. An agent can distinguish this from create_api_key, regenerate_api_key, and list_api_keys without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly lays out the required precondition sequence — start_2fa with action_type "api_key_revoke", user verification, polling get_2fa_status until "verified", then this call — and adds an access precondition (Proof account / start_login session). This is exactly the when-and-how-to-use guidance an agent needs before invoking.

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