Revoke API Key

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a destructive operation. The description adds valuable context by explicitly stating 'This action cannot be undone,' reinforcing the irreversible nature beyond the annotation. It does not contradict annotations, as 'revokes' aligns with destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and followed by a critical warning. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's complexity (a destructive, irreversible action with one parameter) and the presence of annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description is mostly complete. It covers the irreversible nature, but without an output schema, it does not explain return values or potential errors, leaving a minor gap.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'keyId' parameter fully documented as 'The UUID of the API key to revoke.' The description does not add any further meaning or details about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('revokes') and the resource ('an API key'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'list_api_keys' or 'setup_api_key' by focusing on revocation rather than listing or creation.

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 clear context by stating 'This action cannot be undone,' which implies when to use it—specifically, for irreversible revocation. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, such as using 'list_api_keys' first to verify the key ID.

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