simulate_revoke

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that nothing is signed, sent, or broadcast, that the amount is hard-coded to zero, that it runs against live state in the same simulated block, and that it is read-only. This fully compensates for the missing annotation layer.

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 dense and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. Minor redundancy exists: 'Read-only.' repeats the earlier 'Nothing is signed, sent or broadcast', so a small deduction is warranted, but every other sentence earns its place.

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 definition covers purpose, workflow, safety, and parameter interplay well, and the schema covers all parameter semantics. However, there is no output schema and the description only says 'the calldata comes back' without specifying the return shape or how simulation failure is reported, leaving a modest 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the concrete transactions behind kind values ('approve(spender, 0)', 'setApprovalForAll(operator, false)', Permit2) and by stating the amount is hard-coded to zero, which tells the agent no amount parameter is needed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Prove a revoke BEFORE it is signed' and then details exactly which approvals it builds (ERC-20, NFT operator, Permit2). It also differentiates itself from siblings by positioning check_approvals as the discovery step and simulate_revoke as the proof step.

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?

Explicit workflow guidance is provided: 'Use check_approvals first to find which grant to remove; use this to prove that removing it will actually work.' It also clarifies the Permit2 case where a different kind must be chosen, and states the read-only, nothing-broadcast constraint that frames when this tool is appropriate.

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