reputation_revoke_feedback

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two real behavioral constraints: submitter-only authorization and the unlocked-wallet requirement. It says nothing about on-chain fee implications, whether revocation is reversible, or what happens to responses attached to the revoked entry — significant omissions for a state-mutating transaction tool.

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 first three sentences are front-loaded and earn their place. The trailing tip pointing at earning_opportunities is unrelated boilerplate that dilutes the definition and can mislead an agent about the tool's scope.

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 description covers purpose, authorization, and wallet state, which is decent for a 4-parameter mutation tool. But with no annotations and no output schema, it should also address fee/sponsored behavior and the effect on any existing responses, leaving the definition adequate rather than complete.

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 100%, so all four parameters including fee and sponsored are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds only that the index refers to a feedback entry the submitter previously created, which is minor clarification beyond the schema's 'Feedback index to revoke'.

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) plus resource (a previously submitted feedback entry) and the selector (by index). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like reputation_give_feedback and reputation_append_response, which create rather than remove entries.

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?

Explicitly states the eligibility condition ('Only the original submitter can revoke their feedback') and the state prerequisite ('Requires an unlocked wallet'), which is exactly the context an agent needs before attempting the call. It does not name alternatives such as reputation_append_response for amending feedback, so it stops short of full when-vs-what-else routing.

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