pillar_direct_revoke_fast_pool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does: signing model (agent-signed, no browser), cost (backend sponsors gas), a refusal condition tied to PoX contract state, and the post-state consequence (STX locked until the current cycle ends, then liquid). This is exactly the behavior an agent needs before committing.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and contract call, then preconditions and post-effects. The closing 'Tip' about earning_opportunities is mildly promotional but still points to a useful next 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?

For a no-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation, the description covers preconditions, cost, signing, and state effects. It does not say what a successful response looks like or how to verify the revoke landed, which is the remaining gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No misleading parameter-like language is introduced.

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?

States a specific verb (revoke) and resource (Fast Pool STX delegation) scoped to the Pillar smart wallet, and names the underlying contract call (pox-4 revoke-delegate-stx). This distinguishes it from siblings like pillar_direct_stack_stx or unstake_stx without needing either schema.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition ('refused while pox-4 is not the active PoX contract') and a follow-up route to earning_opportunities. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives (e.g. pillar_unwind or dual_stacking_opt_out), so context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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