project_leave

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

While annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description adds specific behavioral context by explaining that leaving removes visibility of project-scoped memories, which is not covered by 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 extremely concise with two sentences. The action and effect are front-loaded, and every part adds value without redundancy.

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), the description covers the primary behavioral consequence. It could mention return values or side effects, but the existing output schema may compensate.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds 'project name' to clarify the 'project_id' parameter. This is minimal; a more detailed explanation of how to obtain the project name would improve clarity.

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 clearly states the action ('Leave a project') and the consequence ('You will no longer see its project-scoped memories'). It effectively distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'project_join'.

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 for leaving a project but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'project_join'. No exclusions or context for when not to use it are provided.

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