Revoke API Key

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: explains that the cutoff is 'best-effort immediate' because in-flight sessions may serve until TTL expiry, and that revoking an already-revoked key returns success. These are non-obvious operational details an agent could not infer from destructiveHint/idempotentHint alone.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct operational value: the action, the side effect, the timing caveat, idempotency, the auth prerequisite, and the follow-up. The primary action is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter destructive action, the description covers impact scope, timing semantics, authentication requirement, idempotency behavior, and the natural next step. With an output schema present, no return-value explanation is required.

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 tool takes zero parameters, and the description correctly provides no parameter documentation. With an empty schema and an output schema present, there is nothing further to clarify.

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?

States a specific verb (revoke) and a precisely scoped resource (the caller's current internal API key). It is unmistakably distinct from tronsave_generate_api_key, which it names as the counterpart.

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?

Clearly tells the agent what to do next — call tronsave_generate_api_key when continued internal access is needed — and states the prerequisite of a wallet signature identity. It stops short of explicit when-not scenarios (e.g., what to do for a compromised vs. routine rotation), but the context is unambiguous.

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