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

The description mentions 'Permanent on-chain,' indicating that the revocation is irreversible, which is a key behavioral trait. However, there are no annotations, and the description does not disclose other traits such as that the transaction is unsigned and requires further steps, or any authorization requirements. The schema descriptions for revokeMint and revokeFreeze already state 'irreversible,' so the description adds only marginal value.

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 exceptionally concise: one sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and key behavioral note ('Permanent on-chain'). 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (4 boolean/string params, no output schema) and the context from sibling tools, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits the workflow context (this builds an unsigned tx that must be executed) and does not explain how the output is used, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names. A more complete description would reference the execute tool.

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 100% and each parameter already has a descriptive schema description (e.g., 'Permanently revoke the mint authority...'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool builds an unsigned revoke-authority transaction for mint and/or freeze. It specifies the action and the resource (authority). However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tools solknife_revoke_authority_execute and solknife_revoke_authority_read, which could confuse an agent about when to use this specific build 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like solknife_revoke_authority_execute or solknife_revoke_authority_read. The sibling tool names imply a workflow (build -> execute), but the description does not mention that this tool produces an unsigned transaction that must be submitted via the execute tool.

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