leave_chat

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as irreversibility, permission requirements, or impact on other API calls. It simply restates the action already implied by the tool name, providing no value beyond the annotations.

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 a single, focused sentence: 'Bot leaves a group, supergroup, or channel.' It is direct and contains no filler, exemplifying perfect conciseness where 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the annotations providing the destructive hint, the description is minimally viable. However, it omits useful context such as the precondition that the bot must be a member of the chat, and what response to expect (e.g., success booleans). It could be enhanced with a note about post-leave behavior.

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%: the only parameter, chat_id, is fully described as 'Chat ID or @username'. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail, but the schema already carries the semantic load, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb 'leaves' and clearly identifies the resource (group, supergroup, or channel). It is distinct from sibling tools that modify or manage chats rather than exit them, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies usage when the bot needs to exit a chat, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention scenario exclusions or prerequisites. The intent is somewhat self-evident from the name, but the description lacks explicit context.

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