revoke_api_key

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

Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral details. It hints at destruction via 'DELETE' but does not explain irreversible effects, authentication needs, or impact on active sessions. The description is too sparse to inform the agent's risk assessment.

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 very concise, using only three lines. However, the inclusion of the HTTP method and tags is useful. The formatting is slightly awkward ('A P I' with spaces) but does not impair understanding. It earns a high score for efficiency, though it could be slightly clearer.

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 simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is still incomplete. It fails to explain the consequences of revocation, whether it can be undone, or any side effects. An agent would need more context to use this tool safely.

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% (single parameter 'id' described as path parameter). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema—it does not clarify what the 'id' represents or any constraints. Baseline score of 3 applies as the schema already covers the parameter.

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 explicitly states the action 'Revoke A P I Key' and provides the HTTP method and endpoint, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'generate_api_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool or when to avoid it. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or context for revoking an API key. The agent receives no help in decision-making.

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