agora_leave_research_challenge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses two concrete side effects (frees participant slot, removes from review census immediately) and the reversibility rule (rejoining restarts the response window). It omits any permission/auth requirements, keeping it short of a 5.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by its effects and reversibility. Every clause adds information with no padding.

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 an output schema exists, return values need not be described, and the mutation's consequences and reversibility are covered. Only the auth/permission context and the mission_id format remain unaddressed, which are modest gaps for a single-parameter tool.

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?

There is one parameter (mission_id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no clarification about its format or where to obtain it. It is a self-evident identifier, so the gap is minor, but the description does not compensate for the coverage deficit.

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 clear verb ('Leave') and resource, and the colon clause immediately specifies what leaving does. However, the description calls it a 'Mission Challenge' while the tool name and surrounding siblings distinguish 'mission' tools (agora_join_mission) from 'research_challenge' tools (agora_join_research_challenge), so the terminology is slightly at odds with the name.

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 word 'deliberately' implies this is the intentional counterpart to some other removal path, and it notes rejoining is allowed, which hints at when it is appropriate. But it never names an alternative tool or states an explicit precondition, leaving usage largely inferred.

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