apikeys_revoke_api_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: permanent revocation, immediate effect, and irreversibility. It adds clear context beyond the basic tool name.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action and consequence. Every word adds value, and the structure is clean and direct.

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 revocation tool with one parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the essential behavioral context. It lacks only minor details about the input key, but overall it is sufficient.

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 single parameter 'key' is not described beyond its existence in the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should elaborate on the key's format, source, or usage, but it does not. This leaves the agent without necessary detail for correct invocation.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: permanently revoke a DataNexus API key. It uses a specific verb ('revoke') and resource ('API key'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'generate' or 'rotate'.

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 implies when to use the tool (for permanent revocation) and warns that the action cannot be undone, suggesting a new key be generated if needed. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools or state prerequisites.

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