Leave a channel/supergroup

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint and openWorldHint, so the safe behavior is partially covered. The description adds the distinction that deletion is creator-only but does not disclose additional side effects of leaving (e.g., losing access, irreversibility beyond rejoin, or any accountId implications). It does not contradict annotations, but adds limited behavioral context beyond them.

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, front-loaded sentence with a helpful pointer to the sibling tool. Every word earns its place, and it is immediately scannable.

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?

With two parameters, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is too sparse. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., being a member), what happens after leaving, or how accountId is used. While the tool is simple, the lack of parameter semantics and any behavioral detail makes it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 parameter meaning, but it does not explain any of the parameters. 'peer' and 'accountId' are not described at all, leaving the agent without guidance on required format or optional usage. This is a critical gap.

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 uses the specific verb 'Leave' plus the resource 'channel', clearly stating the action. It also distinguishes itself from 'delete_channel' by noting the alternative for removal, making the purpose unmistakable even among many sibling 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 explicitly tells when to use this tool versus 'delete_channel', including a condition ('creator only') for the alternative. This gives clear usage context and an exclusion, satisfying the dimension fully.

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