Prepare Strata Vault session control

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

The annotations indicate destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world behavior, but the description adds no additional details about side effects, irreversibility, or required permissions. It does not disclose potential consequences or state changes beyond the generic 'revocation' context. For a destructive operation, more transparency about the nature and impact is expected.

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, concise sentence with no redundancy or fluff. It is well-structured and easy to read. However, it is perhaps too brief given the complexity of the operation, but conciseness itself is not penalized; the sentence is efficient and clear in its wording.

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 lacks essential context about the purpose and usage. It does not explain what 'owner-authorized' means in practice, what 'externally held' refers to, or what 'prepare' implies (e.g., does it create a transaction that needs confirmation?). There is no output schema, so no information about return values. The description is too sparse to fully inform an agent about when and how to use the 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?

The schema defines three parameters (action, walletAddress, sessionPublicKey) with no descriptions, and the tool description does not explain any of them. The description mentions 'owner-authorized' and 'session key' but does not map these to the parameters. With zero schema coverage, the description entirely fails to clarify parameter meanings, leaving the agent to guess the role of each field.

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 prepares an owner-authorized revocation of a Vault session key, which is a specific and distinct action among the sibling tools. The mention of 'owner-authorized' and 'externally held' adds useful context. However, 'prepare' is slightly ambiguous—it could imply a preliminary step rather than the actual revocation, but the intent is still clear.

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, nor any preconditions or scenarios. It lacks explicit instructions on when this tool should be invoked, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and brief description. There is no comparison to sibling tools like strata_vault_revoke or strata_vault_submit.

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