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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: login requirement, the irreversible consequence ('must re-apply or be invited to come back'), the side effect of withdrawing pending applications, and the owner/manager preconditions that block the call.

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?

Front-loaded with the login requirement and destructive warning, then organized into labeled sections for the call chain and pitfalls. Dense but nearly every clause is actionable; the pitfall list is slightly long but justified by the destructive nature of the operation.

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 single-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, side effects, reversibility, and the routing alternative. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely 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 description coverage is 100% for the single organizationId parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description only implies where the id comes from (via list_my_organization_memberships), adding marginal value beyond the structured field.

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 ('以本人身份退出一个组织') and adds the scope detail that leaving also withdraws the user's pending application. This clearly separates it from siblings like leave_organization_alliance or remove_organization_member.

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?

Gives an explicit invocation chain (list_my_organization_memberships → user confirmation → this tool), an explicit exclusion (owners must transfer first; official sub-entities cannot leave before the manager steps down), and an explicit alternative for a different need (update_my_organization_membership to just mute promo messages).

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