raid_leave

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

With no annotations to fall back on, the description fully discloses the side effects: canceling the background driver and closing the session. It also notes robust behavior when not connected, which is important transparency for an exit operation.

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 two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the additional detail kept to essential side effects and a safety note. No redundant words.

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 tool with no parameters and a simple action, the description is complete. It explains what is done, how it is done cleanly, and that it is safe to call in an edge state. No missing critical information.

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 input schema is empty, so parameter coverage is 100% and the baseline applies. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed since there are no parameters.

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 the raid') and provides additional specifics about what that entails ('cancel the background driver and close the session cleanly'). This distinct action is easily differentiated from sibling tools like raid_play or raid_status.

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?

It gives a concrete condition for safe usage ('Safe to call even if not connected'), which helps an agent decide when to invoke it. While it does not explicitly name alternatives, the context of sibling tools makes the appropriate use case obvious.

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