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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, but the description adds important context: login is required, pending applications are withdrawn, rejoining requires a new application or invitation, and user confirmation is needed before initiating. It also discloses owner and official-branch constraints that materially affect invocation.

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 structured into clear bracket sections for prerequisites, call chain, and pitfalls. Every sentence carries operational value, including the confirmation requirement and the alternatives, with no redundant restatement of the title.

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 destructive single-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers login, confirmation, side effects, irreversibility, role-based blockers, and alternatives. An agent has enough information to decide whether and how to call it correctly.

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% and the single organizationId parameter is already described as 组织 id. The description adds useful acquisition context by pointing to list_my_organization_memberships for obtaining the id, though it does not add format or validation details beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 以本人身份退出一个组织, and clarifies the side effect of withdrawing pending applications. It also distinguishes the tool from relevant siblings such as list_my_organization_memberships and update_my_organization_membership.

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?

It gives an explicit call chain: list_my_organization_memberships to get the organization id, then user confirmation, then this tool. It also states when not to use it, including that owners cannot leave directly and that notification preferences should use update_my_organization_membership instead.

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