Revoke an API key

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the risk profile is known from structured data. The description still adds real value with the immediate cut-off of every client and the note that the action is not reversible from the CLI, but it says nothing about required permissions, scope or rate limits.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the effect, then reversibility, then the precondition. Every sentence carries decision-relevant information, and nothing is padding.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with full schema coverage, no output schema and annotations that already flag destructiveness, this is close to complete: effect, irreversibility and the confirmation requirement are all stated. The remaining gap is that it never names the reversible alternative or the sibling that supplies the key name, which the schema also leaves to inference.

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 both key and confirm are already documented in detail, including the requirement that confirm match the key name and come from oneguard_keys_list. The description reinforces the confirm guard but adds no new meaning 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?

The description opens with a specific verb plus resource ("Disables an API key immediately") and states the blast radius ("cutting off every client using it"). That separates it cleanly from siblings like oneguard_keys_create, oneguard_keys_update and oneguard_keys_list, so an agent can choose it without opening the schema.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition for use: only after the user explicitly asked for this specific key, and confirm the exact key name first. What it omits is the alternative path: it never says to use oneguard_keys_update if the intent is a reversible disable, or which sibling to call when the user has not named a key.

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