Revoke an API key

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: permanence, impossibility of un-revoking, potential self-inflicted connection loss, and the confirmation-token requirement. This is exactly the kind of value descriptions should add beyond annotations.

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 sentences with no filler. The most important behavioral facts (permanence, self-impact, token requirement) are front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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, irreversible tool, the description covers permanence, the confirmation workflow, and the risk of cutting the server's own connection. Combined with the schema, no information critical to calling the tool correctly 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 baseline is 3. The description's 'Requires a confirmation token' adds process-level nuance but the schema already explains that confirm_token should be omitted to receive one. No new parameter-level semantics are introduced beyond the schema.

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 the specific verb 'Revokes' and the resource 'API key', adding 'immediately and for good' and 'Wiki.js has no way to un-revoke one'. This clearly distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like list_api_keys and other API-related mutations.

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?

Provides clear usage context: the operation is permanent, requires a confirmation token, and warns about revoking the server's own key. It does not explicitly compare against alternative tools, but no direct alternative exists among siblings, so the caution and prerequisite are sufficient guidance.

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