Leave a group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly warns that leaving cannot be undone without a fresh invite and instructs the agent to always confirm first. This is strong transparency for a simple mutation tool, though it doesn't mention response behavior or side effects beyond the core action.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The core action and the most important safety warning are front-loaded, and every word adds value.

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 irreversible action, the description covers purpose, consequence, and required confirmation. It could mention response format or permissions, but those are not essential to correct invocation. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use safely.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the semantic load effectively.

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 the action ('Leave') and the resource ('a group or community'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like update_group or manage_group_participants because it focuses specifically on leaving rather than modifying or managing.

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 gives clear usage guidance by requiring user confirmation before acting and warning about irreversibility. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives, but the unique purpose makes that less critical.

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