leave_channel

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by stating idempotency when already absent and refusal to leave if it would leave the channel empty or without any remaining owner. Annotations only provide destructiveHint=true, but description gives important edge-case behaviors.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds essential information without 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 single-parameter tool with output schema and annotations, the description covers core behavior, idempotency, and guard conditions adequately. No major gaps except not describing return value, but output schema exists.

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 100% for the single parameter 'channel', with description 'a string that will be trimmed'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 it leaves a non-archived Huly channel as the authenticated account, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like archive_channel, remove_channel_members, and join_channel.

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 when to use (to leave a channel oneself) but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like remove_channel_members or archive_channel. It provides behavioral conditions (idempotent when absent, refuses if empty/no owner) but lacks explicit selection guidance.

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