hedera_dissociate_token

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

The description discloses that the tool builds an 'unsigned' transaction, which is a key behavioral trait—it does not submit the transaction. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose other critical behaviors such as requirements (e.g., account must be associated first), error states, or that the result is a transaction that needs signing. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, front-loading the key fact that the tool builds an unsigned dissociation. While it is efficiently short, it omits essential details, preventing a 5. The structure is clean and direct.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, and only 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value (probably an unsigned transaction), no context on dissociation semantics, or any account prerequisites. This is a minimal viable description but leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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%: the description does not explain any parameter. The schema itself is minimal (tokenIds, accountId, payerAccountId) and lacks semantic detail such as format of token IDs, meaning of accountId, or when payerAccountId is needed. The description adds no value beyond the parameter names.

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 uses the verb 'Build' and specifies the resource 'token dissociation', clearly indicating the tool creates an unsigned transaction to remove token associations. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'hedera_associate_token' by name, but the description itself does not explicitly differentiate, so it falls short of a 5.

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 (e.g., hedera_associate_token for association, or other token management tools). There is no mention of prerequisites or common use cases, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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