project_leave

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

Annotations (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) already indicate the tool is non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: after leaving, project-scoped memories are hidden from the user but retained for others, and re-joining is possible. No contradiction.

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 concise, with a main sentence, a paragraph about side effects, and an Args section. The key information is front-loaded. Minor redundancy in the Args section, but overall efficient.

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 tool with one parameter and no nested objects, the description covers the purpose, side effects, and re-join capability. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described, and the description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 (project_id) with schema description 'The project name to leave.' The description repeats this in Args. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, earning a baseline 3.

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 'Leave a project — removes you from its member list.' It uses a specific verb ('leave') and resource ('project'). Among siblings, project_join and project_members exist, making this tool's purpose distinct.

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 explains when to use the tool (to leave a project) and provides context on consequences (memories hidden, but retained for others, can re-join). Though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context is clear and helpful.

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