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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is an irreversible-feeling write. The description adds the important behavioral gate that the user must clearly ask to leave, but says nothing about consequences — whether membership data, progress, or history are lost, or whether rejoin is possible.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, with no filler. The crisis/medical and meditation-chat exclusions are somewhat tangential for a team-leave action and add slight noise, but they do serve routing.

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, no-output-schema tool with two optional params, the description covers intent gating but omits the outcome of the action (what is deleted, effect on team membership, rejoinability). That is the main gap an agent would want filled before invoking a destructive operation.

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 `tap` and `confirm` are already documented in the schema, and the baseline is 3. The phrase 'clearly asks' loosely supports the confirm flow but adds no explicit meaning to either parameter beyond what the schema states.

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 names a specific verb and resource (leaving one's team) and adds a strong precondition ('user clearly asks'), so the agent knows what the tool does. It does not distinguish this from adjacent siblings such as delete_my_2hives_data or team_status, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use ('user clearly asks to leave their team') plus several when-not cases (medical questions, emergencies, crisis, general chat about meditation). No alternative tool is named for the excluded scenarios, which keeps it from a 5.

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