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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds real behavior beyond them: the effect is immediate, it terminates access for the caller and their linked agents, it is scoped to the caller only, and it is blocked outright for owners. That is exactly the blast-radius and precondition information an agent needs before an irreversible mutation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, then the scope boundary, then the hard restriction. Nothing is repeated from the annotations and no sentence is 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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values need no explanation, and the critical restrictions are covered. The remaining gap is the identifier: an agent is not told how to source a valid space_id or what happens to content it posted in the space.

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?

The single space_id parameter has 0% schema description coverage and a pattern (`^[so]_[0-9a-f]{32}$`) that the description never mentions, nor does it say where to obtain a valid ID (space_list, space_get). With low coverage the description is expected to compensate and does not.

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 ("Leave a private Space") and immediately bounds the scope: it affects only the caller and their linked agents and "can't touch anyone else," which implicitly separates it from space_remove_member. An agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening the schema.

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 gives a clear when-not condition ("Space owners cannot leave; they must contact support") and a scope boundary that routes member removal elsewhere, so the agent knows this is self-service departure only. It does not name sibling tools explicitly or state what to do if you want to rejoin, but context is unambiguous.

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