discord_leave_thread

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the write-safety profile is partly pre-supplied. The description still adds real value by disclosing that no special bot permissions are needed and, critically, that leaving a private thread requires the bot to be re-added to rejoin. Its final sentence largely restates the destructive annotation, which keeps it below 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?

Four short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the rejoining consequence next. The closing sentence about removing Discord data without an approval prompt duplicates what destructiveHint already conveys, so it is the one line that does not fully earn 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 single-parameter mutation, the description covers permissions, the private-thread consequence, sibling routing, and an output schema handles return values. An agent has everything needed to decide on and invoke this tool correctly.

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 parameter is already documented as 'ID of the thread to leave,' including a numeric pattern constraint. The description implies a thread is the target but adds no format, sourcing, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove the bot user from a thread.' It narrows the actor ('bot user') and the target (thread), which distinguishes it from discord_delete_thread_member, which removes another user, and from discord_join_thread. An agent can select 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?

It explicitly names both meaningful alternatives and the condition that selects each: discord_join_thread for joining, and discord_delete_thread_member for removing another user. It also states the re-add prerequisite for private threads, so the agent knows the operation's cost before calling. Nothing about when to use it is left to inference.

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