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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose an important non-obvious consequence: leaving an in-progress two-player game forfeits it. It still omits what happens to the table/game state afterward or whether other players are affected, and says nothing about auth behavior beyond the schema's token field.

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 terse sentences with zero filler; the action comes first and the forfeit warning follows, so the risk is front-loaded rather than buried.

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 simple leave action with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the critical risk an agent must weigh before calling it. It is slightly incomplete about post-leave state (does the game end, is the seat freed, can you rejoin), but nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so game_id and token are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 and resource ('Leave a table'), which is unambiguous and clearly the inverse of siblings like join_game or open_table. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the action is self-differentiating within the toolset.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb itself and there is no real alternative way to leave a game, so no routing guidance is needed. However, it never states prerequisites (must you be seated at the table?) or when you should not call it, so the guidance remains implicit.

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