revoke_approval

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

The description only states the core action and adds no behavioral context beyond the openWorldHint annotation. It does not disclose that this is a state-changing transaction, requires wallet ownership, or may incur gas costs. The implications of revoking an approval are not mentioned.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is efficiently written, though slightly awkward phrasing. It earns points for brevity but could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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 that this is a blockchain write operation with no output schema, the description lacks critical context such as return values, chain behavior, and wallet requirements. The existence of sibling tools with similar functionality increases the need for additional clarity, but the description is minimal.

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 already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so it relies on the schema. This meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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) and resource (ERC20 token approval) and indicates the target address. However, it does not differentiate from similarly named sibling tools like revoke_token_approval_evm, which could cause confusion.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the approval tools or the evm-specific variants. There is no mention of prerequisites, when this is appropriate, or alternative options.

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