firestarter_untrust_community_drops

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

The description explicitly states that revocation does not affect existing live drops and that they continue until expiry or exhaustion. It clearly communicates the non-cancellation behavior, which is crucial for a revocation action. This content is not available in annotations or structured data, and it substantially clarifies the tool's actual effect.

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, each carrying essential information: the reciprocal action and the non-cancellation caveat. Front-loaded with a clear verb and object, with no filler. All sentences earn their place.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's purpose, its relation to sibling tools, the parameter's meaning, and the critical behavioral caveat about existing drops. Since there is no output schema, the description does not need to explain return values, and no essential information is missing for an agent to invoke it 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 schema documents program_id with a description, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds semantic context by referring to it as 'this community/market program id', but because schema coverage is complete, the description's added value is small yet meaningful. This justifies slightly above the baseline of 3.

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?

Describes a specific reciprocal action ('Revoke a standing approval you granted with firestarter_trust_community_drops') and identifies the resource affected (a community's NEW drop requests). It clearly distinguishes this from the trust/approval tools and explains the practical consequence of revocation.

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 explicitly states when this tool applies (when you previously granted a standing approval and want to revoke it) and what to expect afterward (requests revert to manual approval via firestarter_approve_drop / firestarter_reject_drop). This provides direct routing among sibling tools and effectively discourages misuse for canceling existing drops.

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