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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the important side effect—revoking the temporary visitor session—but it does not mention idempotency, token invalidation, error behavior, or whether the action is reversible.

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 covering both the action and its consequence with no filler. Every part contributes meaning.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thinner than needed: it lacks parameter semantics, a prerequisite for obtaining visitToken, and any indication of the result or return behavior. The low tool complexity partially offsets this, but meaningful gaps remain.

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 schema provides only a string visitToken with 0% description coverage, and the description never explicitly explains that visitToken identifies the session to be revoked. The phrase 'temporary visitor session' gives a weak connection, but the parameter semantics are mostly left to inference.

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 uses a specific verb ('Leave') and a specific resource ('the Visitor Lounge'), then adds the critical consequence 'revoke the temporary visitor session.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling entry/read tools like bursia_visit_join and bursia_visit_read.

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 trigger condition is evident from the description: use this tool when leaving the Visitor Lounge and ending a temporary visitor session. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent would not confuse this with the join/info/send tools.

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