leave_team

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Leave a team' implies a mutation action, but it lacks details on permissions required, whether the action is reversible, effects on team membership, or error conditions (e.g., if not a member). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 concise three-word phrase ('Leave a team') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient for quick understanding.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects (e.g., consequences, permissions), usage context, and output expectations. While concise, it does not provide enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional inference or trial-and-error.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'teamId' documented as 'The team ID'. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing instructions. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Leave a team' clearly states the action (leave) and resource (team), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'kick_user_from_team' or 'withdraw_from_team' (if such existed), which might involve similar team-related actions but from different perspectives or contexts.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., must be a team member), exclusions (e.g., cannot leave if last admin), or related tools like 'join_team' or 'kick_user_from_team' from the sibling list, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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