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

Annotations already indicate the operation is idempotent and non-destructive, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the literal action. It does not disclose what state changes occur or whether the user must be in the room.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though it borders on under-specification by simply restating the tool's name.

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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits useful context such as the inverse relationship with enter_room and any requirement that the user currently occupy the room.

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%, with the room parameter already documented with examples like 'lobby' and 'main-bar#2'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Leave a room.' This is unambiguous and matches the tool name. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like enter_room or leave_conversation, so it stops 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that enter_room is the inverse operation, nor does it state any prerequisites such as already being in the room.

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