edgegate_revoke_api_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses immediate rejection, preservation of the row with revoked_at, destructive nature, and owner-role requirement. This is thorough and adds significant behavioral context beyond just saying 'revoke'.

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 action, and every phrase adds value (immediate effect, audit trail, permissions). No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the simple revoke operation and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what happens to the key, audit preservation, and required role. The missing workspace_id explanation is a minor gap, but the overall picture is incomplete only in that one parameter.

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 covers key_id well but workspace_id lacks any description (50% coverage). The tool description does not compensate by explaining workspace_id or its format. While key_id semantics are clear from schema, workspace_id remains ambiguous, which is a meaningful gap for a required parameter.

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 exactly what the tool does: 'Revoke an API key by id', with specific effects ('immediately rejected', 'row is preserved'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like edgegate_create_api_key and edgegate_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?

It provides clear context for use: revoking a key by its id, with prerequisites ('Requires owner role'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the purpose is specific enough that only a small gap remains.

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