unendorse_interest

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Withdraw your endorsement,' which implies a state change but does not mention reversibility, error conditions (e.g., if the endorsement doesn't exist), permissions required, or any side effects. This is minimal for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence that conveys the core action without waste. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too thin. It lacks any context about how to obtain the interest_id, what happens on success or failure, or any behavioral constraints. An agent would need to infer too much from the name alone.

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%, so both 'token' and 'interest_id' are already documented in the schema. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond restating the action. Since coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no new semantic detail.

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 states a clear verb ('Withdraw') and resource ('endorsement of an emerging interest theme'), making the action unambiguous. It differentiates from the sibling 'endorse_interest' by the opposite verb and from 'list_emerging_interests' by the action type. However, it doesn't explicitly call out the distinction, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'endorse_interest' for the reverse action or when an endorsement must exist first. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues about typical usage scenarios.

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