Api keys: revoke

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by spelling out irreversibility (immediately and for good), the concrete downstream consequence (scripts, CI jobs, CLI profiles failing to authenticate), and a user-confirmation requirement.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and consequence, followed by the prerequisite and safety caution. No filler.

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 one-param destructive mutation with a complete schema and annotations, the description covers safety, irreversibility, prerequisites, and consequences. No output schema needed and nothing an agent requires is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single param is fully documented there, including how to find the ID via api_keys_list. The description only restates 'by ID,' adding no meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 (revoke) and resource (API key) with the identifying argument (by ID), and the `api_keys_revoke` name plus description clearly separate it from api_keys_create/list siblings.

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?

Explicitly advises creating a replacement with `api_keys_create` first if access is still needed and to check with the user before running. It provides strong preconditions and caution, though it does not enumerate when not to revoke (e.g., shared keys) beyond the general warning.

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