firestarter_untrust_community_drops

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

The description discloses key behavioral nuance beyond annotations: already live drops continue running until expiry or exhaustion, while only new requests are affected. This goes beyond the simple readOnlyHint/destructiveHint flags and sets accurate expectations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and includes necessary caveats about existing drops without redundancy. Every sentence earns its 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the action, scope, effect on existing drops, and the resulting workflow. It is self-contained and sufficient given the schema and annotations.

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 for program_id is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'this community' aligns with the parameter, but it adds no extra format or lookup details beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool revokes a standing approval for community drops, using the specific verb 'revoke' and naming the resource (community drop approvals). It distinguishes from sibling firestarter_trust_community_drops and clarifies that it does not cancel existing drops.

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 references the counterpart trust tool and explains that new drop requests revert to manual approval via firestarter_approve_drop / firestarter_reject_drop. It also provides a when-not-to-use by stating this does not cancel existing drops, guiding appropriate usage.

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