Leave Group

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals that this is a destructive operation. The description adds concrete behavioral consequences: stopping data-type sharing with the group owner and stopping receipt of shares made to the group. It does not discuss reversibility or permission requirements, but it meaningfully supplements the annotation.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the consequence. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with an output schema and a destructiveHint annotation, the description covers the essential trigger and effect. It leaves out whether the action is reversible and what permissions or confirmation flow may apply, but those gaps are minor given the surrounding structured data.

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%, and the single parameter is well documented in the schema itself, including its source via get_groups(subscribed_only=true). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema already does the work.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Leave a Fulcra group on the user's behalf.' It clearly distinguishes the membership-exit action from sibling tools like delete_group and create_group, and adds scope that an agent can act on without opening a schema.

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?

It gives an explicit usage condition: the action happens 'at their explicit request' and 'on the user's behalf.' That is clear context for when to call it. It does not, however, name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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