ftrack_revoke_api_key_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the core action but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the API key is deleted, if the action is reversible, or if special permissions are required). For a mutating operation, more transparency is expected.

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 a single clear sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Revoke' and immediately states the object and scope. It earns its place with zero wasted words.

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?

This is a simple tool with two required parameters and no output schema. The description is minimally adequate, but it omits behavioral context (e.g., consequences of revocation) that would help an agent fully understand the operation. Given the lack of annotations, the description could be more complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (api_key_id and project_id), so the schema already explains their meaning. The description adds no additional parameter-level context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Revoke') and clearly identifies the resource ('API key access') and the context ('from a project'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like ftrack_revoke_api_key_security_role and ftrack_grant_api_key_project by specifying the project scope.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or suggest when to prefer this over ftrack_revoke_api_key_security_role or ftrack_grant_api_key_project. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and sibling list.

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