ftrack_un_assume_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. It states the core behavior (returning to original identity) but does not disclose what happens if no identity is currently assumed, whether the action is reversible, or any side effects. This is a simple state change, but the description leaves some behavioral gaps.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded and contains no superfluous information. Every word contributes to understanding the action.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete. It clearly states the purpose and outcome. However, it omits any note about the prerequisite of being in an assumed state or behavior when not, which would make it fully comprehensive. Still, it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing to add beyond what the empty schema already shows.

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 ('Stop assuming') and resource ('another user identity'), clearly indicating the tool reverts an identity assumption. It inherently distinguishes itself from the sibling tool ftrack_assume_user, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 context is clear: this should be used when currently assuming another user's identity, as stated by 'Stop assuming another user identity'. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but no real alternatives exist for this action. It lacks an explicit 'use after assume_user' statement, hence not a 5.

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