team_leave

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the whole burden, and it does disclose the key non-obvious trait: the seat is held about 45 seconds so a quick rejoin is possible. It does not say what happens after the window expires (whether the release becomes final) or whether any session state is discarded, so it stops short of full behavioral 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect, followed by usage constraint and the recovery path. No sentence is redundant and nothing is buried.

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-parameter, no-output-schema lifecycle tool, the description covers action, timing, when to invoke it, when not to, and how to reverse it. The only gap is the post-grace-period consequence, which matters for an agent deciding whether leaving is recoverable.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The description adds no parameter noise, which is correct for an argument-free operation.

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 uses a concrete verb-plus-effect formulation ('Goes offline and releases your seat') that an agent can act on, and it is clearly distinct from the sibling team_join, which it names as the inverse operation. The term 'seat' is slightly metaphorical, but the follow-up sentence resolves it by tying it to rejoin behavior.

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?

It gives both a positive trigger ('when wrapping a session') and an explicit exclusion ('not mid-task'), then names the alternative tool (team_join) that undoes the action. That is the full when/when-not/alternative triad, which is rare and very useful here.

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