manage_api_keys_revoke

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait — this is a soft delete and the key can be restored — which is exactly the sort of reversibility information an agent needs. However it says nothing about permissions required, what happens to services currently authenticating with the key, or how long the key stays restorable.

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?

One short sentence with the behavioral caveat front-loaded in parentheses immediately after the action. Nothing is padded and the most decision-relevant detail (soft delete, restorable) is placed where it will be read.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the single fully-documented parameter keeps the surface small. The only real remaining gap is operational impact — whether revocation immediately invalidates existing integrations — which matters for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 100%; the single key_id parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'Key ID to revoke'. The description adds no format, source, or lookup guidance (e.g., obtain via manage_api_keys_list) beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 API key') and the parenthetical 'soft delete - can be restored' implicitly distinguishes it from a hard delete such as the sibling manage_api_keys_delete. It stops short of naming that alternative, so the contrast is inferred rather than stated.

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 only implied by 'can be restored' — an agent can infer to prefer this over a permanent delete when reversibility matters. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, and no note on whether the key must be inactive first.

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