leave_interest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key consequence (feed stops showing activity), which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, reversibility, or whether other interest-related data is affected, leaving some uncertainty about the full behavioral impact.

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 only two sentences with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the consequence is stated clearly in the second sentence. Every word 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 two-parameter mutation with fully described parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough to call the tool correctly: what it does and what effect it has. It could optionally mention reversibility or idempotency, but the current content is adequate for successful invocation.

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 'token' and 'interest_id' already explained in the input schema. The description itself does not add further parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Leave') with a clear resource ('an interest area you previously joined') and a concrete consequence ('Its activity stops appearing in your catch_up feed'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like join_interest, endorse_interest, and unendorse_interest.

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 establishes clear context: it is for leaving interests the user previously joined, and it names the specific effect on the catch_up feed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the context is sufficient for an agent to infer the correct scenario.

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