revoke_intent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool builds an unsigned transaction (implying no on-chain effect) and requires an API key. However, it does not explain what the transaction contains, whether it validates the intent's active status, or what the return format is. This is partial transparency, leaving important behavioral aspects unstated.

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 extremely concise, containing two sentences that directly state the purpose and a key prerequisite. No filler or redundant content. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary action.

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 an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about return values and post-conditions. It explains the purpose and prerequisite but leaves gaps around expected output and the full workflow. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (offer_hash and side) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 tool's action: 'Build unsigned tx to cancel an active intent.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_lend_intent or broadcast_transaction. It also clarifies the tool's scope (unsigned tx, not broadcasting).

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 a prerequisite (requires any Floe API key) but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the first step in a sign-and-broadcast workflow or when it should be used relative to other intent-related tools, such as create_counter_intent or cancel operations.

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