mesh_goodbye

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and it does well: details the side effects (room leaves, fact publish, stopping heartbeat and all subscription presence), clarifies no-op if presence was never active, and warns about the subtle behavior that next tool use won't restart presence after explicit goodbye. This is deep and honest disclosure.

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 four sentences, each carrying essential information: the action and its exact consequences, the presence semantics, the no-op condition, and the reminder. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Slightly dense, but each sentence earns its place, so it's structured well for a complex side-effectful tool.

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?

The tool is simple in input (no params) but complex in effects. The description covers all relevant behaviors: what leaves, what stops, the no-op case, and the relationship with mesh_hello. It even adds a suggestion to use mesh_remember. Nothing critical is missing, and no output schema is needed.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing to add. The description adds context about the no-op case, which helps the agent understand that no input is needed. Baseline 4 for zero-param tools fits.

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 action: 'Leave the mesh deliberately' and enumerates the specific concrete effects: leaves every room, publishes agent.goodbye fact, stops the heartbeat and subscriptions. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mesh_leave_room (which likely leaves a single room) by being the mesh-wide goodbye. The verb and resource are 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?

Explicitly describes when to use: when leaving deliberately, and contrasts with mesh_hello, noting that presence is now automatic but this tool is needed for permanent exit. Also suggests using mesh_remember before this if there is knowledge to share, giving clear routing among siblings. That is strong guidance.

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