delete_api_key

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds value beyond these by disclosing that revocation is permanent and that dependent triggers and webhooks will stop functioning. This is useful behavioral context not present in the annotations.

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 short, front-loaded sentences. The first states the core action and permanence; the second adds the most important side effect. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with annotations already covering the safety profile, the description is largely complete: it states permanence, the side effect on triggers/webhooks, and the schema covers the parameter. It lacks an explicit pointer to non-destructive alternatives or reversibility, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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% and the sole parameter key_id has a full description in the schema ('UUID da API Key a revogar'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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 ('Revoga' = revokes), a clear resource ('uma API Key'), and adds the modifier 'permanentemente' to distinguish permanent revocation from other operations. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like update_api_key, which modify rather than permanently revoke.

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 makes the usage context clear: use this when you want to permanently revoke an API key, and it warns about the consequence that triggers and webhooks using the key will stop working. It does not explicitly name an alternative like update_api_key for non-destructive changes, so it stops short of a full when/when-not comparison.

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