firestarter_leave_market

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

Annotations only indicate readOnly=false and destructive=false, so the description adds meaningful context: account-level change, confirmation requirement, and the distinction between past credit still clearing while future activity stops. It doesn't discuss reversibility, but it provides substantial behavioral nuance beyond annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then use cases, consequences, and a caution. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 what, when, effect on past vs future orders, and a confirmation warning. It could mention what happens if the buyer has no current market, but that is not essential for a simple leave-market operation.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action: disconnect/delink the buyer from their current community market, with the specific consequence that future orders no longer credit it. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like join_market or update_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?

Explicitly says when to use: when a buyer asks to leave/disconnect a community or wants to switch to another one. It also includes a confirmation warning. However, it doesn't explicitly exclude cases where the buyer is not currently in a market or mention alternatives like switching directly via join_market.

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