revoke_api_key

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: revocation is permanent, takes effect immediately, and cannot be undone. It does not contradict the destructiveHint or idempotentHint annotations, and it clarifies the real-world consequence for the agent.

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 two crisp sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and permanence, then immediately covers the behavioral consequence and replacement need.

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 single-parameter destructive tool, the description and schema together cover what the tool does, what the argument means, where to find it, and what happens after execution. No output schema is needed to make the call behavior understandable.

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%, with the schema already explaining that api_key_id is a UUID and where to obtain it. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb ('revoke') and resource ('API key'), and clearly conveys the permanent, immediate effect. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_api_key and list_api_keys without requiring schema inspection.

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 is implied: if a key must be permanently invalidated, use this tool. The description notes that a replacement key must be created, which hints at the create_api_key sibling, but it does not explicitly name that alternative or state when not 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.