Thu hồi API key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether revocation is immediate or irreversible, what happens to integrations currently using the key, or how success is reported. For a destructive operation, this is a notable gap.

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 description is short and front-loaded with the purpose. The Vietnamese and English sentences are redundant with each other, but the duplication is compact and unlikely to confuse. It earns a high score, though a single-language version would be slightly tighter.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description gives the core trigger and target. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it misses behavioral details such as irreversibility, effect on active services, and confirmation/error behavior, leaving an agent with partial information.

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. It does mention key_id as the identifier used for revocation, but it does not explain where the key_id comes from (e.g., from mail_api_keys_list) or any format expectations beyond the schema's min/max length.

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 specific action (revoke) on a specific resource (API key), and adds the condition under which it applies (unused or compromised). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like mail_api_key_create and mail_api_keys_list.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: revoke when the key is unused or compromised. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select this tool over related key management tools.

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