Leave match

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

With no annotations to carry the burden, the description discloses the key behavioral side effect—closing the browser session—beyond the basic 'leave match' idea. It does not mention reversibility or downstream effects, but the main consequence is explicit.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the action and its consequence with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter action with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the action and the important browser-session consequence. It could add explicit guidance about ending the session permanently, but this is a minor gap.

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?

There are no parameters, so parameter semantics are trivial. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description has nothing that needs to clarify about inputs.

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 specifies a concrete action ('Disconnect from the current match') and a distinct consequence ('close the browser session'), clearly separating it from siblings like join_match and get_state. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 action itself implies the use case: call it when the agent wants to leave the current match. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with alternatives, so the guidance is only implied.

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