revoke_developer_key

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explicitly stating this is a 'soft-delete,' clarifying that the key is not hard-destroyed. It also communicates the AAL2 auth requirement. This aligns with destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so no contradiction exists.

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, tight sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, the soft-delete nuance is immediately attached, and the auth requirement follows. Every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus annotation set covers the essential facts: what it does, the type of deletion, and the required session level. It does not mention return values or post-revoke behavior, but those are minor given the tool's simplicity and the idempotentHint annotation.

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 50%: access_token is fully described in the schema, but key_id has no documentation. The description's phrase 'developer API key' implies key_id's role but does not explicitly map the parameter. It partially compensates for the gap but not fully.

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 uses a specific verb ('Revoke') with a clarifying parenthetical ('soft-delete') and names the exact resource ('developer API key'). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like rotate_developer_key, list_developer_keys, and get_developer_key_usage.

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 a clear prerequisite context by stating 'Requires AAL2 session,' which tells the agent when this tool is callable. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the revoke-vs-rotate distinction is reasonably inferable. It stops just short of the strongest guidance.

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