undelegate_resource

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds that resources move 'back to the configured wallet' but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as potential failure modes, waiting periods, or effects on the receiver. Thus, the description provides only marginal added transparency beyond annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Revoke') and concisely covers the key details without any redundancy or irrelevant 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?

While the schema and annotations cover the parameters and safety profile, the description lacks information about the return value or post-conditions (e.g., whether it returns a transaction hash). It also does not clarify prerequisites like needing to be the delegator. For a destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptive text for all parameters, including receiverAddress, amount, resource, and network. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already gives, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's function with a specific verb 'Revoke', specifies the resource types (BANDWIDTH or ENERGY), and identifies the target (receiver address) and destination (configured wallet). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delegate_resource, which performs the opposite action.

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 implies the usage scenario by mentioning 'previously delegated' resources, making it clear this is for undoing a delegation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion conditions, though the inverse relationship with delegate_resource is obvious from context.

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