离场（形象从世界里消失）

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds substantial context beyond that: the avatar is removed from other players' view, and any later tool call (e.g. world_observe) automatically re-registers presence and restores position from the last persisted location. That re-entry/position-restore contract is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure annotations cannot provide.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its visible effect, then the re-entry caveat, then the recommendation. Every sentence carries information, though the closing 'don't leave your avatar hanging' remark is chatty relative to the rest.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and only two loose annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it explains the immediate effect, the visibility to other players, the automatic re-entry behavior, position restoration, and when to invoke it. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because none is needed, only consequence and lifecycle semantics.

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 and resource: it closes the WebSocket connection to the world, and spells out the visible consequence (your avatar disappears and other players see you leave). This is clearly the inverse of world_enter, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance (call once after finishing a round of visiting, don't leave your avatar idling in the world) and explains what happens if you instead call another tool. It does not explicitly name world_enter as the manual re-entry alternative, but the auto-re-entry condition is covered well enough that usage is unambiguous.

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