Api keys: revoke

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known without the description. However, the description itself adds no behavioral context such as whether revocation is permanent, whether it takes effect immediately, or what happens to in-flight requests using the key.

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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no filler, though it is close to the minimum viable length rather than a tightly optimized definition.

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-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is functionally adequate. It still omits any note about irreversibility, idempotency, or error behavior, which would matter for a destructive operation.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100% ('API key ID to revoke'), so the schema fully documents it. The phrase 'by ID' in the description adds nothing beyond that baseline, warranting the standard 3.

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 (revoke) and resource (an API key) with the identifying dimension (by ID), so it is unmistakable against siblings like api_keys_list or api_keys_create. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, keeping it short of a 5.

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 api_keys_list or api_keys_create, no prerequisites, and no note about irreversibility or preconditions such as key state. The agent must infer all context from the name alone.

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