rca_auth_revoke_token

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about immediate effect, ownership ('your own API keys'), and the return value (JSON confirmation). No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear opening statement followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. It front-loads the purpose. The inclusion of parameter types and return type is helpful, though the 'Args' section largely duplicates schema 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?

The description covers the purpose, when-to-use, input parameters, and return value. For a destructive operation, it explicitly states 'immediately' and 'own API keys'. It lacks error scenarios or prerequisites, but the schema and annotations fill some gaps. The output schema exists, so the return description suffices.

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 description does not add any semantics beyond the input schema. It repeats parameter names but provides no additional explanation for 'client_id' or formatting guidance for 'token' and 'key_id_to_revoke'. The schema descriptions already cover these.

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 action (deactivate), the resource (API key), and the context (immediate deactivation for compromised or retired keys). It distinguishes from sibling tools like rca_auth_generate_token and rca_auth_rotate_key by focusing on revocation.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('useful when a key is compromised or an integration is being retired'). However, it does not mention when-not-to-use or suggest alternatives like rotation, though the context of immediate deactivation implies suitability for urgent scenarios.

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