users_leave_guild

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it warns that the bot loses access immediately, explains the __confirm and MCP_DRY_RUN interaction, and specifies that audit_reason is not accepted. This complements the destructiveHint annotation effectively.

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 well-structured with labeled sections (Purpose, When to use, Note, Returns). Each sentence provides essential information with no redundancy or filler. It is concise yet comprehensive.

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?

Given the destructive nature and confirmation requirement, the description covers the necessary context: usage scenario, destructive consequence, confirmation mechanism, and return value. The output schema is referenced, and the interaction with MCP_DRY_RUN is clarified, making it complete.

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 already covers both parameters well (100% coverage). The description reinforces the semantics of __confirm by explaining the dry-run behavior and confirmation requirement, adding value beyond the schema's description.

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 clear verb-resource pair: 'Make the authenticated bot/user leave a guild.' It explicitly labels the operation as DESTRUCTIVE and distinguishes it from thread-leaving tools like threads_leave by targeting the guild object. This is unambiguous and differs from 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 'When to use' section explicitly states the intended scenario: 'Decommission the bot from a guild it should no longer be in.' While it does not name alternative tools, it provides clear contextual guidance. Including a note about the user-scoped endpoint and audit_reason adds practical usage detail.

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