لغو کلید API فروشگاه

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the effect is destructive and irreversible until a new key is created, that payment requests are blocked as a consequence, that the session copy is wiped, and that 2FA may be required. The only gap is whether the revoke can be undone or re-issued without full re-setup.

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 action and its effect, then the consequence, then the prerequisites. No filler or repetition.

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 an annotation-free destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical ground: what is destroyed, what breaks downstream, and what authorization is required. It leaves minor ambiguity about the conditional 2FA trigger condition and default store resolution.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does map all three parameters semantically: the 'selected store' (storeId), 'user confirmation' (confirm), and the 'two-factor login code' (code). It does not state the 6-digit format for code or that storeId falls back to the currently selected store when omitted, so it stops short of full coverage.

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 states a concrete verb and resource — revoking the selected store's API key in TheyPaid — plus the second effect of clearing the token cached in session memory. It implicitly separates itself from theypaid_create_store_api_key by noting payment requests stay halted 'until a new key is created', though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the agent learns a user confirmation is needed and that a 2FA code is sometimes required, which signals this is a confirm-gated, user-facing operation. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g. rotate vs. revoke), so the agent must infer.

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