revoke_delivery_key

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new context: the Admin-only authorization requirement, the irreversible nature of the action, the downstream impact on live websites, and the {ok:true} response shape. These are exactly the details annotations cannot convey.

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 core action and consequence, then the irreversibility warning and the alternative. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 single-key mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, its effect, its irreversibility, the auth prerequisite, the replacement path, and the return value. Nothing needed to call it safely is missing.

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%, so the id and site parameters are already fully documented in the schema (including the cross-reference to list_delivery_keys and list_sites). The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the schema does the work, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (revoke) and resource (Delivery API key), plus the operational consequence ('every request using it is refused'). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings list_delivery_keys, create_delivery_key, and rename_delivery_key.

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?

Explains the effect of calling it and points to create_delivery_key as the follow-up action for replacing the key. It does not explicitly contrast revoke against sibling operations like rename_delivery_key, but the operational context is clear enough to select it correctly.

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