teams_leave_group

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: leaving stops message delivery and requires another person to re-add the user, which helps an agent understand the real impact.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted wording. Each sentence contributes either the action, its consequence, or the authorization condition.

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 destructive single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key consequences and the explicit user-consent requirement. It is nearly complete, though it leaves the conversationId parameter unexplained for an agent that needs to source it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented conversationId parameter. It does not explain what the ID represents, how to obtain it, or its expected format, leaving a notable semantic gap despite there being only one parameter.

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 starts with a precise imperative verb and resource: 'LEAVE a group chat.' The added consequence ('You stop receiving its messages and need someone to add you back') distinguishes this self-leave action from sibling tools like teams_remove_group_member, which removes another user.

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 phrase 'Only when the user explicitly asked' gives a clear, explicit gating condition for when to use the tool. It does not name alternative tools or further describe when not to use it, but the usage context is strong and unambiguous.

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