hedera_reject_token

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

The description indicates the tool 'Build(unsigned)' a transaction rather than executing it, and 'returns to its treasury' explains the effect. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose prerequisites (e.g., association, balance) or side effects. Some behavioral context is added but incomplete.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Includes key references (HIP-904) and action verb. Appropriate length for the complexity.

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?

Despite good purpose clarity, the description lacks critical context: prerequisites (must hold token?), relationship to other token operations, and output behavior. No output schema, and parameter semantics are weak, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 has 3 parameters with only 33% coverage via descriptions (ownerAccountId). The tool description adds no parameter information, leaving tokenId and payerAccountId undefined beyond their types.

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: 'Build (unsigned) a token rejection' and the outcome: 'returns an unwanted token to its treasury.' It references HIP-904 for standardization. Among many token-related siblings like hedera_transfer_token, hedera_dissociate_token, this tool's specific purpose is well-defined.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., dissociate or wipe). The description implies it's for 'unwanted' tokens but lacks when/why. No exclusions or context provided.

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