Revoke an API key

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered, but the description adds genuinely new information: nothing is sent without confirm: true, there is no server-side dry run, and a request preview is returned otherwise. What it omits is the effect of revoking (immediate invalidation of the key, irreversibility).

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, front-loaded with the action and the write gate, with zero filler. The 'WRITE:' marker makes the mutation status scannable at a glance.

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 destructive, idempotent-keyed mutation with no output schema, the description covers the confirmation flow but leaves out consequences (does the key stop working immediately, is revocation permanent, can it be undone by creating a new key) and doesn't mention that idempotencyKey is auto-generated. Minimum viable rather than 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?

Schema coverage is 67% and the schema itself already documents confirm and idempotencyKey in detail, so the description's mention of the confirm gate largely restates structured data. The bare `id` parameter gets no explanation in either place, and at 3 params the 3 baseline 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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Revoke an API key') and even the underlying endpoint (DELETE /v1/api-keys/{id}), so the agent knows exactly what is being affected. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like apiKeys_list or apiKeys_create, but the verb 'revoke' is unambiguous enough to separate it.

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?

It explains the execution mechanics (must pass confirm: true) but gives no guidance on when to revoke versus other options, no prerequisites such as required scopes or ownership, and no warning about verifying the key id first. Usage is implied by the tool name rather than stated.

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