iam_chat_leave

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the primary effect (leaving the chat) and an additional effect (stopping supervisor notifications). However, it does not disclose potential prerequisites (e.g., must be in an active chat), idempotency, or what happens if the user is not currently in a chat. For a simple action, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Leave') and then provides the secondary effect. There is no filler or redundant wording. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential behavior: leaving the chat and stopping notifications. It does not explain return values, but since an output schema exists, that information is available structurally. It also doesn't mention edge cases like whether the tool fails if not in a chat, but the description is sufficiently complete for a simple action in context.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter information to add. The schema description coverage is effectively 100% (no properties to document). According to the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter details. The description adds nothing about parameters because none exist.

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 states a specific verb ('Leave') and resource ('this mailbox's active live chat channel'), and additionally specifies the secondary effect ('stop its supervisor notifications'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like iam_chat_join (opposite action) and iam_chat_seen (marking as seen), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 usage context: the tool is for exiting the active live chat of the current mailbox. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the clear action and the presence of iam_chat_join as a sibling makes the appropriate usage obvious. No explicit 'when not to use' is given, but the context is clear enough.

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