Revoke an ingest key (204)

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description still adds real value by stating that nothing is sent unless confirm is true and that the operation has no server-side dry run — a meaningful caveat for a destructive call. It stops short of saying what breaks after revocation (e.g., whether ingestion using that key immediately fails).

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and endpoint before the write-gate caveat. The redundant '(204)' appears in both title and description, which is minor waste but not harmful.

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 single-id destructive mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the endpoint, the destructive nature, the confirm gate, the no-dry-run caveat, and implies the 204 empty response. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and safely.

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%; confirm and idempotencyKey already carry their own descriptions, and the description's confirm note largely repeats the schema. The required 'id' parameter gets no added meaning — no indication of where to obtain a key id (presumably from tracking_listIngestKeys) or format expectations.

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 plus resource ('Revoke an ingest key') and pins it down further with the HTTP verb and path (DELETE /v1/tracking/ingest-keys/{id}). That is enough to separate it from tracking_createIngestKey and tracking_listIngestKeys, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation name — revoke an existing ingest key — but there is no statement of when to choose this over adjacent revocation tools such as apiKeys_revoke or shareLinks_revoke, nor any prerequisite about ownership or permissions. The 'confirm: true' note is an execution mechanic rather than when-to-use guidance.

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