revoke_mandate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: payments are refused on every chain after revocation. However, it omits other potentially relevant details such as reversibility, whether the mandate remains visible, permission requirements, or effects on pending payments.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the action, the second explains the consequence. Every word earns its place, and information is front-loaded. There is no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 simple tool with a single parameter and no output schema, this description covers the essential purpose and behavioral effect. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and what result to expect, without needing additional context.

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% and the only parameter 'mandateId' is already described in the schema as 'the mandate to revoke'. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Revoke a mandate' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the tool's action. It also adds a concrete consequence ('every payment under it is refused on every chain'), which distinguishes it from siblings like create_mandate and mandate_status. This is a clear, unambiguous purpose.

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 gives clear context: revoking a mandate causes all underlying payments to be refused across chains, which implies the appropriate use case. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but none exist among the sibling tools, so the guidance is sufficient.

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