Metaplex-nft Revoke Authority

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds value by noting irreversibility and operation class write, reinforcing the behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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 contains 4 sentences, including some generic content about SAP MCP context and agent identity that is not specific to this tool. This adds redundancy and reduces conciseness.

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?

The warning about irreversibility and pre-write checks adds practical context. However, it does not specify which authority types are irreversible nor describe return values or side effects, which would be helpful for a destructive tool.

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?

Input schema covers all parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description does not add further details about parameter syntax, format, or relationships beyond what the schema provides.

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 (remove) a specific authority') and identifies relevant workflows (collection, mint, etc.). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like delegateAuthority or verifyCollection, which handle similar authority concepts.

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 mentions that revocation is irreversible for some types, which provides partial guidance. It advises confirming metadata and ownership before writes, but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., delegateAuthority) or when not to use this tool.

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