huddo_leave

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses a side effect visible to others ('Members see a "left" notice') and a hard precondition (owners cannot leave). It doesn't cover reversibility/rejoining or any membership prerequisite, but the socially-visible effect and the blocking constraint are the highest-value disclosures.

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, no filler, and the behavioral consequence plus the owner restriction are front-loaded right after the core action. Every sentence 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?

For a two-optional-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, its visible effect, and its main constraint, which is nearly everything an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around membership prerequisites and whether leaving is reversible.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters ('as' identity slug, 'room' spaceId/index) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Leave') and resource ('a room'), and immediately distinguishes itself from the archive sibling by declaring that an owner must archive instead. An agent can tell exactly what this does and when a different tool is needed without opening any 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?

Provides an explicit exclusion rule ('An owner must archive the room instead; owners cannot leave'), which routes the agent away from this tool for a whole class of callers. It names the alternative action but not the sibling tool name (huddo_archive) explicitly, so routing is slightly inferential.

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