Leave chat

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the accepted identifier format but does not disclose consequences such as loss of membership or whether rejoin is required; with annotations carrying the main behavioral burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes to identifying the action and accepted identifier.

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 whose safety semantics are covered by annotations and which has no output schema, the description is nearly complete. Minor omissions like confirmation behavior or post-leave effects keep it from a 5.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that the sole required parameter 'chat' accepts an id or @username, which is meaningful beyond the raw schema type.

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 (group/channel) and clarifies the identifier may be an id or @username. It does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like telegram_delete_chat or telegram_kick_member, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as telegram_delete_chat or telegram_join_chat, and no preconditions or exclusions are mentioned. The intended action is implied by the name and description, but usage guidance is absent.

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