End the meeting for the bot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: transcript persistence, that other participants remain, that no one can close the meeting for everyone, and that a scheduled order inside its window is marked left early. Missing are idempotency and error behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 core effect and then the differentiating constraints. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 low-complexity, one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the side effects an agent needs before calling. It stops short of describing the response or failure modes, but nothing essential is absent.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including its origin (create_broadcast or join_broadcast), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no meaning beyond it, which is the baseline case.

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 concrete verb and effect: the bot leaves and the transcript is saved. It explicitly names the sibling it duplicates ("Same result as leave_meeting") and clarifies scope (other participants stay, no owner can close a GifOS meeting), so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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 tells the agent this is functionally equivalent to leave_meeting, which resolves the main selection question between the two siblings. It doesn't state preconditions (e.g. what happens if the bot isn't in the meeting), so not a full when/when-not treatment.

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