threads_leave

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces idempotency while adding the return shape `{left, thread_id}` and the rationale about reducing event fanout. This adds context beyond annotations without contradicting 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 compact and well-structured with clear headers for purpose, usage, exclusions, and return value. Every sentence conveys essential information with no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter mutation tool, the description covers purpose, usage guidance, exclusion cases, return value, and idempotency. Combined with rich annotations and output schema, no further information is needed for correct usage.

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 has 100% coverage: `thread_id` is described as 'Thread to leave.' The description does not add further parameter detail, but since the schema fully explains the parameter, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action: 'Remove the current bot user from a thread.' It uses a precise verb and resource, explicitly distinguishing from removing a different user via `threads_remove_member`, which makes it unmistakable among 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?

Provides explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, including a concrete scenario (bot finished task, reduce noise) and a clear alternative tool (`threads_remove_member`). This exceeds the minimum by offering both affirmative and negative guidance.

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