leave_chat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It makes clear this is a mutating membership action and adds the explicit guardrail that confirm=true is required, going beyond the schema's default false. It stops short of disclosing permanence or rejoin consequences, so it is not a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence earns its place: purpose, confirmation requirement, and chat format. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description supplies the key operational facts: target format and confirmation requirement. It is complete enough for invocation, though the choice against join_chat is left implicit and post-leave effects are not described.

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. It explains both parameters meaningfully: chat accepts an id, @username, or link, and confirm must be true. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema titles.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Покинуть группу/канал' (leave group/channel), clearly distinguishing this from sibling actions like join_chat or logout. It is not a tautology of the tool name because it narrows the target to groups/channels.

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 implies the use case: call it when you want to leave a group or channel. It also states the operational requirement that confirm=true must be set, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. This is adequate but not fully explicit.

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