api_key_revoke

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: the revoked key 'will immediately stop working' and the action is 'irreversible'. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and these details meaningfully inform the agent of consequences beyond the schema.

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 concise and well-structured: two sentences with front-loaded action, endpoint, and immediate consequence. No redundant information is included.

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 simple revoke operation with a single parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what is revoked, that it's immediate, and that it's irreversible. It does not explain return values, but this is minor for an irreversible action where the main concern is the consequence.

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 describes auth_token as 'The API key (auth_token) to revoke' with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add extra semantic meaning for the parameter, so 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 action: 'Revoke an existing Perplexity API key'. It specifies the resource (API key) and includes the endpoint '(POST /revoke_auth_token)', which makes it distinct from sibling tools like api_key_generate and api_key_rotate.

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 the usage context (for existing keys) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like rotate or generate. It lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, making the usage guidance merely implied rather than clearly differentiated.

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