tg_leave

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly discloses the irreversible consequence of delete=true and advises asking first, but it does not mention other behavioral traits such as permissions or whether leaving is reversible in group/channel contexts.

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 consists of two sentences, front-loaded with the action and adding a necessary warning. Every word earns its place with no 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 simple leave operation, the description covers the core purpose and the destructive edge case. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary. It lacks explicit alternative-tool guidance but is otherwise 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaningful semantics: delete=true erases the conversation on your side and is not recoverable, and chat implies group/channel/private chat. This compensates for the missing schema-level parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb 'leave' with explicit resources (group/channel), and distinguishes this tool from siblings like tg_delete by focusing on leaving rather than deleting content. The private-chat delete nuance adds further clarity.

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 gives contextual guidance for private chats ('ask first' when delete=true) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tg_delete or tg_edit. Usage context is implied rather than fully specified.

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