solidrpc_revoke_key

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the real burden and does add value by disclosing the blast radius: applications using the key lose access. It still omits whether revocation is permanent or reversible, what happens if the id is unknown, and any permission requirements.

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?

Two short sentences with the action first and the consequence second; nothing is wasteful. Every clause carries information relevant to the operation.

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 simple one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and its impact, but leaves the identifier semantics and success/failure behavior unexplained. An agent could call it, but would be guessing about the id format and reversibility.

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% for the single required parameter 'id', and the description does not clarify whether it is a key ID, a key name, or a prefix. The only semantic hint is that the id identifies an 'RPC key', which is minimal compensation for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Revoke an RPC key'), which unambiguously separates it from the sibling solidrpc_create_key. It does not explicitly reference the key-management siblings by name, but the operation is clear without opening the 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. ownership or admin role), and no pointer to alternatives such as solidrpc_keys for listing keys before revoking. The second sentence describes a consequence rather than a usage condition, so an agent gets no routing logic.

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