revoke_delegate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'revoke' implies a mutation that likely requires authorization, the description does not specify permissions needed, whether the action is reversible, potential side effects (e.g., impact on existing transfers), or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential 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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with security implications), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like required permissions, behavioral outcomes, or error handling, which are essential for safe and effective use by an AI 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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('walletName' and 'tokenMint') clearly documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between the wallet and token or format examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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') and the resource ('a delegate's authority to transfer tokens'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'approve_delegate' by indicating the opposite action, and from other tools like 'transfer_tokens' by focusing on authority management rather than token movement.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a delegate must already be approved), exclusions, or related tools like 'set_token_authority' or 'approve_delegate', leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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