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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value beyond that by specifying who loses access (you and your delegated agents) and that the effect is immediate, not deferred or reversible-on-grace-period.

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?

Two sentences, each carrying distinct load: the first the effect and scope of revocation, the second the owner restriction. Front-loaded with the verb and no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover destructiveness. The remaining gap is minor: no guidance on where a valid space_id comes from, which matters slightly given the strict pattern but is otherwise implicit from the tool name.

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?

There is a single parameter, space_id, with 0% description coverage in the schema — only a regex pattern constrains it. The description never mentions the parameter or how to obtain a space_id, so it doesn't compensate for the coverage gap, though the single-parameter surface keeps the risk low.

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?

States a specific verb ('Leave') and resource ('a private Space') plus the immediate consequence (revoking access for you and delegated agents). Combined with the owner caveat, an agent can distinguish this from siblings like private_space_revoke_member (which removes another member) without inspecting schemas.

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?

Provides an explicit exclusion: 'Space owners must contact support to close their Space,' telling the agent when this tool will not work. It does not name an in-product alternative or state prerequisites, but the exclusions it gives are actionable.

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