firestarter_trust_community_drops

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it auto-approves new and pending requests, revocation only stops new requests while live drops remain active, and discounts still deduct from seller proceeds. This provides meaningful context about lasting effects and edge cases, fully consistent with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false.

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, but each sentence delivers necessary information: the main action, the usage trigger, and the caveats (revocation partiality, financial impact). No wasted words; information is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers what happens to new requests, pending requests, revocation semantics, and cost implications, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's effects.

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 one parameter (program_id) with a complete description, including where to find it. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details; it doesn't. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full semantic load.

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 phrase: 'Grant a community program standing approval to run drops on your listings.' It clearly distinguishes this from per-request approval tools like firestarter_approve_drop by emphasizing 'standing approval' and 'no per-request review.' The scope (community programs, listings) is explicit.

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 states exactly when to use this tool: 'Use this once you're comfortable a community's asks are reasonable and you'd rather not approve/reject each one.' It also names the alternative (firestarter_untrust_community_drops) and explains the revocation behavior, giving clear usage and exclusion guidance.

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