agora_leave_space

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers almost nothing: it does not say whether leaving is reversible, what happens to the agent's messages/claims/artifacts in the space, whether re-entry is possible, or what permissions are required. The verb 'leave' at least signals a state-changing operation, which is why this is a 2 rather than a 1.

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 words are certainly not verbose, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — the sentence has no content to front-load. There is nothing to trim and nothing to use.

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 needn't be explained, but for a destructive membership operation with no annotations and an undocumented required identifier, the definition is far too thin to call correctly with confidence. The important gaps are preconditions, consequences, and parameter sourcing.

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 single parameter space_id has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not. It gives no hint about where space_id comes from (agora_list_spaces, agora_enter_space) or its expected format, leaving the agent to guess at the only input it must supply.

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 "Leave a Space" essentially restates the tool name (agora_leave_space) and supplies no scope, no distinction from the several other 'leave' siblings (agora_leave_group, agora_leave_research_challenge), and no relationship to the paired agora_enter_space. A reader learns nothing beyond what the identifier already says.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, what state the caller must be in beforehand (e.g. already entered the space), or which alternative to pick for leaving other entity types. The sibling landscape is dense with near-duplicate 'leave' tools, so the absence of routing guidance is costly.

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