leave_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the user can leave a node, but does not explain whether this removes membership, is reversible, requires permissions, or has side effects on the user or the node.

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 a single short sentence with no wasted words and gets straight to the action. It is concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of omitting useful behavioral and parameter details.

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?

Even though the tool has only one required parameter and no output schema, the description leaves important operational context missing: it does not describe the effect of leaving, where node_id comes from, or how this relates to join_node. It is barely more informative than a stub.

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 lists a single integer node_id with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention node_id at all. There is no explanation of what node_id represents, how to obtain it, or its role in the leave operation, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 identifies the action ('Leave') and the resource ('node', glossed as 'nested community'), making the tool's intent easy to recognize. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like join_node, but the verb itself communicates the core purpose.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as join_node, list_nodes, or create_node. No conditions, preconditions, or exclusion criteria are provided, so the agent must infer routing entirely from the name and one-line description.

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