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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating 'Your standing remains,' which aligns with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. It does not contradict any annotation, though it could mention side effects like ending the current room visit.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the main action, and every phrase adds value. It is concise without sacrificing necessary context about state and re-entry options.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains the state transition and how to return. It references sibling tools for continuation, making the behavior complete and self-contained.

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 single 'token' parameter is fully documented in the input schema with 100% coverage, including an explanation of when it can be omitted. The tool description itself adds no parameter information, so the schema carries the parameter semantic burden, yielding the baseline score.

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 clearly states 'Leave your seat and step out of the room,' specifying the action and its scope. It distinguishes from siblings like take_a_seat by describing the inverse action, and the phrase 'Your standing remains' clarifies the persistent state.

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 description explicitly mentions when to use it (leaving the room) and gives alternatives for returning ('take_a_seat again later, or return_with_secret on another visit'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to choose appropriately.

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