marrow_revoke_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not mention side effects (e.g., the key becomes invalid immediately), reversibility, any required permissions, or whether the key is permanently deleted or only deactivated. This is a significant gap for a destructive-looking operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It directly states the core purpose in a clear and efficient manner.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema) but the description is too sparse. It lacks critical context about the consequences of revoking a key (e.g., irreversibility, authentication requirements) and any special considerations. Given that no annotations or output schema compensate, the description is not fully complete for safe and 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 input schema already provides 100% coverage by defining 'id' as 'API key ID'. The description only says 'by ID', which adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Revoke') and the resource ('API key'), with a specific method ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like marrow_create_key, marrow_get_key, marrow_list_keys, and marrow_rotate_key, which address different key lifecycle operations.

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 this tool is used when an API key needs to be invalidated, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives like marrow_rotate_key (which might revoke and create a new key) or marrow_list_keys (to find the ID). No exclusions or contextual guidance are provided.

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