revoke_api_key

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered; the description still earns credit by adding the irreversibility statement and the required `api_keys:write` scope, which annotations do not convey. It loses polish by repeating the same DESTRUCTIVE/cannot-be-undone warning twice and never saying what actually happens to the key (immediate invalidation? retained record?).

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 lead sentence and the explicit-use warning are front-loaded and useful. But the DESTRUCTIVE warning is duplicated verbatim, wasting a full line and diluting the warning's force.

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 mutation with annotations covering the danger flag, the description gives the essentials: irreversibility and required scope. It leaves out the undocumented parameter's meaning and the post-call effect, which are the two things an agent still needs before invoking.

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 single `id` parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden — and it says nothing about what `id` is. An agent cannot tell from either source whether this is the key's opaque ID, its prefix, or the secret value.

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 and resource ("Revoke an API key"), which is instantly understandable. However, it does not differentiate from the close sibling rotate_api_key (or list_api_keys/create_api_key), so an agent scanning the toolset must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Gives a clear gating condition: "Only call it when the user explicitly asked for exactly this action," which is strong guidance for a destructive tool. It stops short of naming alternatives — it never says to prefer rotate_api_key when the intent is replacement rather than removal.

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