revoke_api_key

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes beyond by explaining the recursive revocation and its immediate effect on authentication. It also highlights the irreversibility and potential to revoke multiple credentials, providing critical context that annotations alone do not convey.

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 concise and front-loaded with the most critical information (requirements and irreversible action). It packs substantial detail into a few sentences without unnecessary fluff. Slightly verbose in the middle explaining the cascade rationale, but it earns its place by aiding agent judgment.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive, cascading, irreversible), the description is complete. It covers prerequisites (admin scope), preconditions (check list_api_keys), behavioral outcomes (immediate revocation of all descendant keys), and the irreversibility. The absence of an output schema is acceptable because the tool's effect is what matters, not the response.

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 schema covers the single parameter with a description and a pointer to list_api_keys, but the description reinforces the meaning by emphasizing the cascade and the need to verify the key's children. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds value by clarifying the consequences of using the parameter, though the schema already does most of the work.

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 an API key') and the resource (an API key), and it highlights the cascading effect that distinguishes it from a simple revocation. It is specific and unambiguous, differentiating it from sibling tools like create_api_key and list_api_keys.

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 provides explicit guidance: it requires admin scope, advises checking list_api_keys first to understand the cascade, and warns that the action is irreversible. It also explains the rationale for cascading, helping the agent understand when it's appropriate to use this tool.

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