revoke_consumer_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is permanent, which is important, but it doesn't disclose whether the key is immediately invalidated, whether existing tokens/sessions using the key are affected, or whether this action can be reversed (it says 'permanently', implying not). It also doesn't mention any authorization requirements.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the key behavioral trait (permanently revoke). It's efficient and to the point, though it could add a bit more context without becoming bloated.

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 action with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It doesn't explain the impact on the consumer, whether the key can be recreated, or what happens to existing integrations using the key. Given the permanence, an agent needs more context to safely invoke this tool.

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 schema already documents the single parameter (consumer_id as a UUID). The description doesn't add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action (permanently revoke) and the resource (a consumer API key). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rotate_consumer_key, reactivate_consumer_key, and toggle_consumer_key by emphasizing permanence, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 implies this is for permanently disabling a consumer key, which contrasts with siblings like reactivate_consumer_key and toggle_consumer_key. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over rotate_consumer_key or toggle_consumer_key, nor does it mention any prerequisites or consequences.

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