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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is free, takes effect immediately, carries no keys, requires local EIP-191 signing by the owner, and defines expected success behavior: ok=true and the next verify refused with AUTHORITY_REVOKED.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by goal and success criteria, then the required signed payload format. It is somewhat verbose and informally structured, but every sentence carries useful information.

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 tool with one nested opaque parameter and no annotations, the description covers the signing contract, authentication model, immediacy of effect, and verification outcome. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required from the description.

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 coverage is 0% and the parameter is an opaque object with additionalProperties true. The description fully compensates by specifying the exact signed_revoke structure, including the revoke type, agent, nonce, signature, and EIP-191 signing requirement.

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 clearly states the action: 'Revoke an agent wallet's spend authority, effective immediately.' This distinguishes it from related siblings like publish_spend_authority_grant and get_spend_authority by using a specific verb and resource.

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 gives clear intended use: 'stop every future payment under the grant before the next verify runs.' It provides success criteria but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the sibling names make the contrast fairly obvious.

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