leave_game

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: mid-game exit triggers server-side trusteeship, and reconnection with the original playerId is possible. Missing only minor details such as whether the session is fully terminated or what the response contains.

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 short sentences with zero waste, the core action front-loaded before the side-effect and recovery note.

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?

Given zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what happens on mid-game exit and how to recover. Return behavior for a simple disconnect is the only remaining gap, and it is minor.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the description correctly adds no parameter detail. However, it references 'playerId' for reconnection without clarifying that this is not an input to this tool, which is a small potential ambiguity.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: closing the game connection. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like join_game or wait_for_action, though it never names an alternative explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Explains the consequence of invoking it while a game is in progress (server-side auto-play) and offers a recovery path via the original playerId. That is clear usage context, but it doesn't state when not to use it or point to an alternative tool.

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