Bot leave chat

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation and reversibility profile is covered. The description adds the concrete consequence beyond the annotations: commands and timers stop working until rejoin, which is exactly the side-effect context an agent needs. It does not contradict destructiveHint=false, since the effect is reversible.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the consequence second. No filler, and the plural 'timers' correctly scopes the impact.

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 zero-required-parameter mutation with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, reversibility hint, and side effects. The only missing piece is explicit routing to bot_join and a note on auth/scope requirements.

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 'channel' parameter is fully documented in the schema (format, default fallback). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('leave' with the '(part)' clarification for Twitch terminology) and resource ('the channel's chat'), and the second clause explains the observable effect. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling bot_join.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool is for taking the bot out of chat, and 'until it rejoins' hints that the action is temporary and reversible. However, it never explicitly names bot_join as the counterpart or states the conditions under which an agent should prefer leaving over muting.

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