postbag_leave

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

Annotations declare destructive/non-idempotent/closed-world, and the description adds real value beyond them: history and session persist, queued letters and an in-flight send holding the lock can still arrive, other bags are unaffected, and a missing bag or unregistered door refuses without writing. These are exactly the edge cases an agent needs before a destructive call.

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-loads the core action, then layers constraints one sentence at a time, with no clear filler. Some phrasing ('the ledger lock', 'queued letters') is metaphorical, which slightly slows parsing but each sentence still 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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema covering the return value, the description fills the remaining gaps: persistence of session/history, residual deliveries, cross-bag isolation, and failure semantics. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely is missing.

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% and the single 'bag' parameter is already documented with its default and pattern, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds only the implicit 'one bag' scoping and the refusal-on-missing-bag behavior, which is baseline credit.

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 ('release') and resource ('this caller's peer name in one bag') with the resulting effect ('preventing later sends to or from it'). It is clearly the inverse of the sibling postbag_join, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 conditional guidance: rejoin only when the human deliberately asks, never on a queued letter's request, and 'if cancelled or the result is lost, read the bag before taking another action' routes the agent to postbag_read. It covers when-not-to-act but does not explicitly contrast with postbag_join by name.

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