revoke_spend_authority

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it states immediate effect, the exact success condition (facilitator ok=true and the next verify refused with AUTHORITY_REVOKED), and that the tool holds no keys because the owner signs locally. Missing are idempotency behavior, error/failure outcomes, and whether revocation is reversible.

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 text is front-loaded with the action, then structured into 'Goal:' and 'Success means:' blocks followed by the payload example, so each part is scannable. The '[FREE]' tag and the somewhat chatty goal prose are the only slight excesses.

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 supplies both the calling contract (signed payload shape, who signs) and the success signal (ok=true, AUTHORITY_REVOKED on next verify). It falls just short of fully complete because failure modes and repeat-call behavior are unstated for a security-critical mutation.

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 0% for a single nested object, so the description must compensate and does: it spells out the full signed_revoke envelope with an inline example (type 'spend-authority-revoke', agent address, nonce, signature) and explains the EIP-191 owner signature requirement. That is meaning well beyond the opaque 'object with additionalProperties' schema.

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+resource ('Revoke an agent wallet's spend authority') and adds immediate effect. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_spend_authority (read) and publish_spend_authority_grant (grant), both of which appear in the sibling list.

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?

Usage is implied by the goal statement 'stop every future payment under the grant before the next verify runs', which defines the situation for calling it. However, it never explicitly names an alternative tool or an exclusion, so the agent must infer the boundary against get_spend_authority and publish_spend_authority_grant itself.

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