leave_room

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that leaving is only possible before start, that a creator leaving triggers refunds for all players and room cancellation, and that the entry fee is refunded in USDC. It does not fully specify non-creator refund behavior or failure conditions, but the provided behavior is substantive.

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 sentences long, front-loads the core action and constraint, and every sentence contributes useful information: when the tool applies, what the creator case does, and the refund currency. There is no redundant wording.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main use case, the timing restriction, and the creator-specific cancellation and refund behavior. It is slightly incomplete in that the non-creator consequence is only implied and no return or failure behavior is mentioned, but it is generally adequate.

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 single roomId parameter is already described as '房间 ID 号'. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter sufficiently.

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 states a specific verb ('leave'), a resource ('room'), and a clear temporal scope: '尚未开始的房间（仅等待阶段）'. This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like create_room, match_room, and start_game, which involve different phases or actions.

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 explicitly restricts usage to the waiting phase ('仅等待阶段') and specifies the creator vs. non-creator context. It does not name alternative tools or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions beyond the waiting-phase restriction, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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