revoke_api_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates the irreversible nature ('permanently revoke', 'irreversible'), the impact ('all subsequent requests using it will fail'), and the return format ('Returns: { success: boolean }'). It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication requirements, but covers the most critical behavioral aspects for this destructive 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 perfectly structured and concise. It starts with the core action, follows with usage guidance, then provides return format and example - all in four sentences with zero wasted words. Every sentence adds essential information for the agent.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral consequences, return format, and includes an example. The combination of clear warnings about irreversibility and the return format specification makes this description complete for its context.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' well-documented in the schema as 'API key ID to revoke'. The description doesn't add additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but provides an example ('Example: { id: 17 }') that reinforces usage. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 with specific verb ('permanently revoke') and resource ('API key'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_api_key' and 'get_api_key' by focusing on destruction rather than creation or retrieval. The phrase 'all subsequent requests using it will fail' further clarifies the irreversible impact.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('a key has leaked or is no longer needed') and provides critical guidance on prerequisites ('Confirm with the user — irreversible'). It clearly distinguishes this as a destructive operation compared to other API key tools like 'list_api_keys' or 'get_api_key'.

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