leave_chat

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full disclosure burden and clearly flags the action as DESTRUCTIVE and requiring confirm=true. This gives the agent critical safety information beyond the bare tool name, though it does not describe additional side effects such as whether membership is permanently lost or whether messages remain accessible.

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 a single short sentence with the destructive warning front-loaded. It is appropriately minimal and carries no filler, making the key information immediately visible.

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 two-parameter tool, the description covers the essential destructive-confirmation behavior. However, without annotations or an output schema, it would benefit from a brief note on what leaving means, whether it is reversible, and which sibling tools to use instead for deleting or archiving a chat.

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 50%, and the description does little to compensate. It mentions 'requires confirm=true', but that merely restates the schema's confirmation requirement; chat_id remains undocumented in both the schema and the description, and no additional format, scope, or usage detail is provided.

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 verb 'Leave' and the resource ('a group or channel'), so an agent can understand the action. It does not explicitly distinguish leave_chat from related destructive sibling tools like delete_chat or remove_participant, but the verb itself is reasonably specific.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives is provided. The description says nothing about when an agent should choose leave_chat over delete_chat, archive_chat, or remove_participant, leaving the selection decision to inference.

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