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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false. The description adds critical context: requires login, irreversibility, post-leave treatment (nonexistent in lists/unread/members), 404 behavior on re-leave, and DM 400 error. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Well-structured with clear section markers (【需要登录】【发起前把群名一个个念给用户确认】【不幂等】【组合链】). Every section adds distinct value - prerequisites, irreversibility, idempotency, error handling, alternatives, and chained usage. Front-loaded with login and group-only constraints.

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?

Complete for a destructive mutation with 1 param and no output schema. Covers prerequisites, constraints, irreversibility, error cases, alternatives, and chained workflows. Nothing critical 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% (conversationId described as '群会话 id'). The description adds the semantic constraint that the ID must reference a GROUP (not DM) and emphasizes irreversibility, which exceeds the schema's simple label.

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 the verb '退出' (leave), resource '群聊' (group chat), and explicit scope constraint '仅 GROUP'. Distinct from siblings by naming block_user and set_conversation_muted as DM alternatives.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (leave a group), when not (DM - 400 cannot_leave_dm), and alternatives (block_user for disconnection, set_conversation_muted for noise). Also provides a chained workflow with set_notification_prefs for icebreak groups.

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