Leave Chat Room

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Leave' implies a mutation action, it doesn't specify whether this requires permissions, what happens to messages/notifications after leaving, if the action is reversible, or any rate limits. The description states only the basic action without behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple action tool and front-loads the core functionality immediately.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, side effects, or relationship to sibling tools. While concise, it leaves critical behavioral and contextual gaps that the agent would need to discover through trial and error.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary information while matching the schema's completeness.

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') and resource ('the current chat room'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'room_join' beyond the obvious verb difference, missing an opportunity to clarify the relationship between these room management tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., must be in a room first), consequences of leaving, or when to choose this over other room-related actions. The agent must infer usage context entirely from the tool name and description alone.

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