leave_conversation

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description enriches this by specifying the exact user-visible effects: no notifications, removal from the list, re-invitable for groups, and permanent for one-to-one conversations. There is no contradiction with the annotations, and the added context helps an agent assess risk.

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 a lead behavior statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every clause adds relevant consequence or parameter detail, though the Args section is somewhat redundant with the input schema.

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 single-parameter, side-effecting action, the description covers the action's effects, parameter meaning, and return value. It does not address error handling or edge cases like leaving an already-left conversation, but those are not essential given the low complexity and the annotations already providing the safety profile.

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?

With schema_description_coverage at 0%, the description's Args section is the only semantic explanation of the parameter. Saying 'token: The conversation token of the conversation to leave' identifies the parameter's role but does not explain how to obtain it or validate it, despite this being the only required parameter.

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 ('Leave a Talk conversation') and then specifies the consequences, making the operation unambiguous. Among siblings like leave_circle and various delete_* tools, this is clearly the conversation-leaving action.

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 explains what happens after leaving (notifications stop, conversation disappears from list) and distinguishes group conversations (re-invitable) from one-to-one conversations (permanent). It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but no close conversation-specific alternative appears among the siblings, so the guidance is sufficient.

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