revoke_api_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility and does an excellent job: it discloses that the action is permanent, irreversible, requires explicit confirmation, and causes active clients to stop immediately. This goes well beyond minimal expectations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, followed by the critical safety caveat. Every word earns its place; concise and well-structured.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, its irreversible nature, and the required confirmation. No gaps that would hinder 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?

The schema covers all parameters with clear descriptions (keyId from list_api_keys, confirm must be true). The description adds behavioral meaning to 'confirm' by framing it as the gate to 'proceed' with an irreversible action, which enhances understanding beyond the raw schema.

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 states 'Permanently revoke an API key' with a specific verb and resource, making the action unambiguous. It also includes the consequence ('irreversible', 'stop working immediately'), clearly differentiating it from siblings like create_api_key or list_api_keys.

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?

The description clearly conveys this is for permanent revocation and requires confirm: true to proceed, implying it should be used for irreversible key invalidation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios, but the context is clear enough for a tool of this nature.

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