ftrack_revoke_api_key_security_role

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('revoke') but gives no information about side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or impact on the API key's access. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate consequences.

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, concise sentence that directly states the action. No wasted words or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 with only two parameters and no output schema, so the description could be short. However, it lacks usage context, such as when to revoke a security role or how this interacts with other API key operations. This makes it minimally viable but not fully 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% coverage with both parameters described ('API key ID' and 'Security role ID to revoke'). The description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline score of 3 applies. This is acceptable because the schema already provides clear semantics.

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 verb 'revoke' and the resources involved ('security role from an API key'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ftrack_revoke_api_key_project' by explicitly mentioning security role versus project. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'ftrack_grant_api_key_security_role' or other revocation tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, complementary actions, or scenarios where this tool should be preferred. This is a clear gap.

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