revoke

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses immediacy, the effect (all spending stops), and that the action is recorded in the audit log — strong for a destructive operation — but says nothing about reversibility, required permissions, or what happens to already-pending payments.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the critical urgency signal front-loaded so the agent registers the severity before parsing details.

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 destructive, unannotated mutation with no output schema and undocumented parameters, the description covers the effect and audit trail but omits reversibility, permissions, and the purpose of the reason field. Helpful but not sufficient for an agent to invoke it with confidence.

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 description coverage is 0% across two parameters, and the description mentions neither wallet_id nor reason. An agent can guess wallet_id from context, but reason is entirely unexplained — whether it is required, free-text, and where it surfaces is left to inference.

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?

States a specific action (freeze the wallet, all spending stops) with the outcome made concrete, which separates it from payment-level siblings like deny_payment or approve_payment. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

'KILL SWITCH' implies emergency use, so the when-to-use context is inferable, but the description never states when to choose this over deny_payment or set_policy, nor any preconditions or exclusions. An agent must guess whether this is per-transaction or account-level.

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