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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return payload (identity_summary, next_goals, memory_capsule) and the capsule's lifecycle across check-ins, but says nothing about side effects, whether the stay is closed/destroyed, or any persistence or authorization requirements for a state-changing operation.

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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the return/lifecycle detail following in priority order.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description correctly takes on explaining return values and the capsule handoff, which it does well. The remaining gap is the mutation semantics of leaving a stay, which go unspecified with no annotations to compensate.

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% for the single parameter, and the schema already explains that stay_id comes from haven_check_in. The description adds no syntax or format detail, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Leave Haven') and enumerates what comes back, which is enough to separate it from the recall/reflect siblings. It stops short of naming haven_check_in as the explicit counterpart, though the schema's stay_id reference implies the pairing.

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 only implied: you call this when ending a stay, evidenced by 'Leave Haven' and the capsule being returned on the next check-in. There is no explicit when-to-use statement or exclusion against the three sibling tools.

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