Thu hồi API key

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is destructive and safely repeatable. The description adds the compromise scenario but says nothing about reversibility, whether the key is immediately invalidated, or the effect on in-flight requests. Against an annotation set that already covers the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short parallel sentences, one Vietnamese and one English, front-loading the condition and the action. No padding, though the bilingual restatement is redundant for a multilingual model.

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 one-parameter destructive tool whose annotations already carry the safety profile and which has no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits the consequence of revocation (what breaks), which would materially help an agent decide whether to call it.

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?

With one parameter and zero schema description coverage, the description only repeats that key_id is the handle used for revocation. It adds no format, length, or sourcing guidance beyond the schema's type and bounds.

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 / thu hồi) and resource (API key), and indicates it operates by key_id. It does not differentiate itself from the nearby siblings mail_api_key_create or mail_api_keys_list, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger conditions — when the key is no longer used or is compromised — which is better than most siblings. It does not, however, mention alternatives such as rotation (monapay_rotate_key) versus revocation as a possible next step.

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