leave_channel

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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: leaving also removes that connection's inbox, and the action is isolated to a single channel with no effect on other memberships.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the destructive scope front-loaded and the non-effect on other channels trailing as a clarification.

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 and the input schema is fully documented, so return values and parameter semantics need not be repeated. The description covers what the tool does and what it destroys; the only minor gap is that it never hints the action is non-idempotent or that re-joining is possible.

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 100%, so peer_secret and connection_id are already fully explained in the schema, including the recovery path via join_channel. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Leave one channel') plus the exact scope ('one channel', 'Any other channel you are on is unaffected'), which lets an agent distinguish it from join_channel and list_channels. It is clear and bounded, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb: call this when you want to leave a channel. There is no statement of prerequisites, when to prefer it over alternatives, or what happens if you leave and later need the same membership — the latter is only documented in the schema, not the description.

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