rca_auth_revoke_token

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, so the description goes beyond by explaining plan-tier behavior, the risk of revoking your only key, and the recovery path via rca_auth_generate_token or dashboard. This adds useful operational context beyond the structured hints.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and usage, then practical caveats, then parameters. Slightly longer than necessary because the Args section partly duplicates schema descriptions, but every section adds meaningful decision-relevant detail.

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 destructive auth tool, this description is unusually complete: it covers when to use it, sibling alternatives, permission/plan implications, unknown-key-id fallback, and post-revocation consequences. The only minor omission is client_id, which is optional and defaulted.

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 already describes token and key_id_to_revoke clearly, and the description mostly restates them. It does not mention the optional client_id parameter, but that parameter has a default and is peripheral to the core destructive action.

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 ('Deactivate'), resource ('one of your own API keys'), and immediacy, with concrete use cases (compromised key, retired integration). It explicitly contrasts itself with rca_auth_list_keys/rca_auth_rotate_key, making sibling differentiation clear.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('compromised' or 'retired'), and clarifies a key selection criterion: no plan gate, unlike sibling key-management tools. It even handles the edge case of Free/Starter users who cannot list keys and directs them to the dashboard.

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