tg_leave

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds value by specifying the irreversibility of delete=true for private chats and advising to ask first. This goes beyond the annotations by detailing the consequence and the appropriate social precaution. It does not contradict the annotations, so it is accurate and adds context.

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 two concise sentences. The first states the core action, and the second adds a crucial safety caveat. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the purpose. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 action with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, the destructive edge case, and a caution. It doesn't mention permissions or side effects beyond the delete flag, but those are not critical for a basic leave operation. The annotations cover destructive behavior, so the description is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 explain parameters. It explains the delete flag's meaning (erases conversation, not recoverable) and the accompanying caution. However, the chat parameter is not described at all – its format (e.g., username, ID, phone) is left unspecified. Given two parameters, the description covers one partially and the other not at all, which is a moderate gap.

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 the primary action: 'Leave a group or channel.' It's specific about the resource and verb. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like tg_delete or tg_archive, which might also involve leaving or removing something. The purpose is clear but not contrasted with alternatives.

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 provides usage guidance for the delete flag: 'For a private chat, delete=true erases the conversation on your side and is not recoverable — ask first.' This is helpful contextual advice, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., tg_delete, tg_archive). There is no 'when not to use' or mention of alternative tools, so the usage guidance is incomplete.

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