mesh_leave_room

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses the published event, the close:1 caveat that 'nothing enforces it', that watching stops, and that the transcript remains readable via mesh_lobby_transcript.

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 sentences deliver the essential behavior, side effects, and caveat without repetition. The opening phrase 'Leave a room' immediately anchors the purpose, and every clause earns its place.

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 description covers the key side effects, event semantics, and post-leave transcript access, which is strong for a simple tool. It does not mention expected failures, such as leaving a room the agent is not in, or what the tool returns, but no output schema exists and the core calling context is clear.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context beyond the schema by explaining that close:1 only means something from the agent that opened the room and is not enforced, which is valuable for correct invocation.

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 names a specific action ('Leave a room') and explains the concrete effects: publishing participant_left or room_closed, and stopping watch on the topic. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mesh_join_room and mesh_open_room.

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 context of use is implied: you leave a room you previously joined or opened. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so the routing guidance is left to inference.

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