revoke_token_approval

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

The description discloses the effect (setting approval to 0) but does not mention that this initiates a blockchain transaction, requires signing with the private key, or has gas costs. Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden and falls short of disclosing these important behavioral traits.

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 of 8 words, front-loaded with the action and free of redundant or extraneous information. It is perfectly sized for its purpose.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must convey expected outcomes and side effects. It does not mention the return value (e.g., transaction hash), that a transaction is broadcast, or network requirements beyond the schema. For a state-changing tool with 4 parameters, this is inadequate.

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 descriptions cover all 4 parameters with 100% coverage, including security notes for privateKey. The tool description adds no further meaning to the parameters, so it meets the baseline of 3 without exceeding it.

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 uses the specific verb 'Revoke' and clarifies the action with 'set to 0', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly identifies the resource as 'a spender's approval to use your tokens', which distinguishes it from related tools like approve_token_spending and revoke_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 usage when a spender's approval needs to be removed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as approve_token_spending or check_token_allowance. There are no exclusions or alternative references provided.

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