hedera_revoke_kyc

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that the tool builds an unsigned transaction, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it omits safety considerations (e.g., mutation requires KYC key) and does not specify whether it is destructive or affects account status beyond KYC.

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, front-loading the action and including the unsigned note. It is efficient but could be structured to place the 'Build (unsigned)' qualifier more effectively (e.g., at the end).

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 no output schema and the tool being a state-changing operation, the description does not specify the return value (unsigned transaction) or any prerequisites (e.g., KYC key, token KYC status). It is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and consequences.

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%, but the description does not explain the parameters beyond their names. The optional 'payerAccountId' is not clarified, and format requirements (e.g., token ID as '0.0.1234') are missing, leaving the agent without sufficient detail to correctly fill parameters.

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 KYC' and the resources 'from an account for a token', distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'hedera_grant_kyc'. The inclusion of 'Build (unsigned)' adds context about the tool's behavior without obscuring the primary purpose.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'hedera_grant_kyc' or prerequisites (e.g., KYC key ownership, token association). The description lacks explicit exclusions or context for appropriate use.

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