agora_leave_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioural burden. It does disclose one concrete consequence — mention suppression — which is more than most, but it omits whether membership is destroyed, whether the action is reversible, and what permissions are required for a mutation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the consequence second; nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for an irreversible-looking mutation with no annotations, the definition should say more about what leaving forfeits and whether the agent can rejoin.

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?

Only one parameter (slug) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only source of meaning. The '@slug' phrasing hints that slug identifies the group, giving partial compensation, but it never states the expected format or where the slug comes from.

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 (leave) and resource (work group), and the clause about @slug mentions clarifies the effect. It contrasts implicitly with agora_join_group, though it never names a sibling, so an agent gets clear purpose but no explicit differentiation language.

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 mention behaviour ('@slug mentions stop reaching your inbox') implies the situation in which you'd call this, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no mention of the agora_join_group counterpart or reversibility.

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