firestarter_leave_market

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

Annotations already show destructiveHint:true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: past credit still clears, only future activity stops, and this is an account-level change. This helps the agent understand exactly what will and won't be affected, going beyond the raw annotation flags.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and purpose. Every sentence adds information: the first states the action and consequence, the second covers the temporal nuance and scope. No redundancy or fluff.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, use case, and long-term effects. It leaves out only minor details like reversibility or whether the buyer remains a member of the market, but these are not necessary for calling the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has zero properties, so there is nothing for the description to add. Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description doesn't need to explain parameters and doesn't mention any, which is consistent.

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 a specific verb ('Disconnect') with a clear resource ('buyer from their current community market') and states the effect ('future orders no longer credit it'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its focus on removing the link, not updating or joining a market.

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?

It explicitly says when to use ('Use when a buyer asks to leave/disconnect a community, or wants to switch to another one') and clarifies the nuance about past vs. future credit. However, it does not name specific alternative tools or state explicit 'when not to use' conditions, so it stops short of a full 5.

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