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

The description discloses a key non-obvious behavior: the transaction is not broadcast, which is critical safety information given the destructiveHint annotation (revoke is destructive when signed). It also clarifies the next step (signing) which beyond the annotations provides context that this is an intermediate step, not a final on-chain action.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a workflow hint. No filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's role.

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?

Despite having 13 parameters and no output schema, the description captures the essential workflow: build, sign, and confirm. It does not explain every parameter (though the schema does), but it gives the tool's place in the transaction lifecycle. The lack of output schema is not an issue since the next step is signing, which is mentioned.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 13 parameters. The description itself does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond stating the tool builds approve/revoke transactions. Since the schema already covers parameter meanings, the description adds minimal value here, matching the baseline.

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 ('Build'), a specific resource ('ERC20/SPL approve or revoke tx'), and a critical scope qualifier ('does not broadcast'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like dex_tx_send_raw_transaction or dex_tx_swap_sign_approve by focusing on the construction/preview step.

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 usage context: build the tx with this tool, then sign with dex_wallet_sign_transaction after user confirmation. This gives the agent a workflow sequence. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'does not broadcast' statement implies it is not for sending.

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