foaas_keep

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions requiring a target but does not explain the tool's core action (e.g., returns a generated message) or side effects. The description focuses on use cases rather than what the tool actually does.

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 one concise sentence that immediately states the purpose ('Use for dealing with persistent annoyances...') and required element ('Requires a target'). It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (likely returning a string), the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks explanation of what the tool outputs or its broader context as a 'Fuck Off As A Service' tool. The sibling tools are similar, but the description could briefly mention the response nature.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('to' and 'from') fully described in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high.

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 is for dealing with persistent annoyances, dismissing someone, extended rejection, or emphasizing staying away. It uses a specific verb ('dealing with,' 'dismissing') and resource ('persistent annoyances'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like foaas_asshole or foaas_bye, which have different emotional tones.

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 provides context for when to use (persistent annoyances, dismissal) and notes it requires a target. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives among the many sibling tools. Usage is implied but not comprehensive.

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