chap.participant.leave

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose a non-obvious side effect: 'Entries they have already written stay in the audit log.' Yet it omits other potentially important behavior such as whether the removal is reversible, whether permissions are revoked, or what happens if the last participant leaves.

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 short, carefully placed sentences. The first states the main action and the second adds the most consequential side effect with no filler, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with only two required parameters, no nested objects, and no output schema. The description is adequate for a basic call, but it leaves out important expected behavior, such as error conditions, irreversibility, and whether removal is administrative, which the lack of annotations cannot otherwise convey.

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%, and the schema already explains 'from' with examples like 'human:alice@example.org' and 'workspace' with examples. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Remove a participant from a workspace.' This is specific and sets it apart from sibling tools like chap.participant.join and chap.participant.rotate_key, so an agent can tell what this tool does at a glance.

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 usage is implied: use this when a participant should be removed from a workspace. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, nor a comparison to related participant-removal or key-management tools, so the agent must infer alternatives from the sibling list.

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