delete_api_key

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds value beyond that: it flags DESTRUCTIVE in-text and lists the three key classes that cannot be revoked (self-authenticating key, OAuth-issued keys, managed assistant keys), which is not derivable from annotations or schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and an uppercase DESTRUCTIVE warning, followed by the procedure and then the exclusion list. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable information.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the definition supplies everything needed: identity of the resource, safety procedure, failure/exclusion conditions, and confirmation gating. No material gap remains for correct invocation.

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 schema already explains that key_id is a UUID resource ID rather than a pst_live_ secret and that confirm must be true after explicit consent. The description reinforces the confirmation flow but adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 a posterly API key') plus an ownership scope ('owned by the authenticated user'), which cleanly distinguishes it from create_api_key and other account tools. Nothing about the operation is ambiguous.

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?

Gives an explicit pre-call procedure (call whoami or use a known key ID, show the user the ID/prefix/name, get explicit confirmation), names an alternative tool (whoami), and enumerates exclusion cases. An agent knows both when to call it and when it will fail.

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