bale_leave_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and fails to disclose that leaving is irreversible, what happens to chat history or membership, whether the user is removed immediately, or whether admin/ownership constraints apply. It only restates the mutation.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for an irreversible mutation with no annotations and an undocumented parameter the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine side effects or preconditions for calling 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 and does not: group_id is never explained (ID format, where to obtain it, group vs channel distinction). A single self-evident integer parameter keeps this from being a 1, but nothing beyond the schema is added.

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 (leave) and resource (group or channel), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It is not differentiated from siblings such as bale_disconnect or bale_get_group_info, but the action is unambiguous and distinct from those by virtue of the verb.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. must already be a member), and no mention of alternatives such as bale_disconnect for terminating a session. Usage is only inferable from the verb itself.

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