cpu_leave_syndicate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the action writes on-chain (wallet transaction), fails clearly under specific conditions (not in a syndicate, registry not deployed), early attempts report the earliest leave time, and immediate rejoin is allowed. This is rich behavioral context beyond what a schema would 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core action. Each of the four sentences adds distinct value: purpose, cooldown requirement, immediate rejoin, on-chain nature, and failure modes. No redundant or extraneous information.

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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently covers operation behavior, constraints, failure modes, and consequences. It is complete for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool, especially with sibling tools like join_syndicate providing context.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details. It confirms no inputs are required, which is sufficient.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Leave') and resource ('syndicate you currently belong to'). It is distinct from sibling tools like cpu_join_syndicate and cpu_create_syndicate, making its role unambiguous.

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 description provides clear context on when to use: after the exit cooldown has elapsed, and notes that rejoining is immediately possible. It implies the alternative (join_syndicate) but does not explicitly name alternatives or mention when not to use beyond the cooldown. Failing conditions are specified, which helps the agent decide.

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