project_leave

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

Annotations already declare idempotent and non-destructive behavior consequentially, and the description adds meaningful context: project-scoped memories stop appearing in memory_search()/memory_list(), memory is retained for other members, and rejoining is possible. This goes beyond the structured 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 efficiently structured: core action first, then behavioral consequences, then the alternative, then the argument. Every sentence contributes useful information, with no filler or 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?

For a simple one-parameter, idempotent, non-destructive tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description fully explains the effect, side-effects on memories, and the rejoin path. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the only parameter, project_id, is already described as 'The project name to leave.' The description repeats this exactly without adding new semantic detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Leave a project, removes you from its member list.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like project_join and project_members.

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 the consequences of leaving and explicitly mentions the alternative: 'You can re-join at any time with project_join().' While it doesn't enumerate all when-not-to-use cases, the context is clear enough for selecting this tool.

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