revoke_nft_approval

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the action ('revoke') but does not explain that this is a state-changing on-chain transaction, that it incurs gas fees, or that it removes the operator's permission to transfer the NFT collection. No side effects or security notes are mentioned beyond the schema's privateKey note.

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 (8 words) that is front-loaded and directly to the point. There is no wasted language or unnecessary 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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description is minimal and fails to convey important context such as the fact that the operation broadcasts a transaction, consumes gas, or reverts changes to the operator's access. While the schema covers parameters, the description does not explain the broader operational 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as how the parameters interact or any constraints on their values.

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 NFT approval for a marketplace or operator' uses a specific verb ('revoke') and clearly identifies the resource (NFT approval) and the target (marketplace or operator). This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'approve_nft_for_marketplace' and 'check_nft_approval'.

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 implies the use case—revoking an existing approval—but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as checking the current approval status. It provides no exclusions or conditions.

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