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

With annotations already marking this as destructive and open-world, the description adds critical behavioral context: the API key may stop working after a successful leave, the call always targets the calling user, and the owner cannot leave without transferring ownership. This goes far beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Five sentences, front-loaded with the core action and a warning, then constraints. Every sentence carries necessary information: scope, user targeting, owner restriction, API key consequence, and request body note.

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 destructive workspace-leave operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential risks and prerequisites: caller identity, owner restriction, post-leave API key behavior, and required scope. An agent has enough to invoke it safely.

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 the account and workspace parameters are already well documented. The description adds only peripheral information ('No body', 'no parameter to pick a different user') without explaining the actual parameters further, matching the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 specific verb and resource ('Voluntarily leave the current workspace') and immediately clarifies the scope ('affects the calling user... no parameter to pick a different user'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like pm_remove_workspace_member. The owner restriction further sharpens the purpose.

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 provides clear usage context: this is for voluntary self-removal, not for removing others, and the workspace owner must transfer ownership first (implying pm_transfer_workspace_ownership). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not to use it beyond the owner case.

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