leave_chats

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the bare purpose—nothing about irreversibility, partial failures, or what leaving actually entails. This provides no extra transparency beyond the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core action and is appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity.

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 the tool has four parameters, destructive behavior, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It provides no information about how to specify chats, partial success behavior, or the impact of retry parameters. The description leaves too many operational questions unanswered.

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 0%, and the description only minimally implies `chat_ids` via 'N каналов'. It does not explain that identifiers can be integers or strings (e.g., usernames vs. numeric IDs), nor does it address `ctx`, `auto_floodwait_retry`, or `max_total_wait_seconds`. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 'Выйти из N каналов/супергрупп одним вызовом' clearly states the tool's function: leaving multiple channels/supergroups in a single call. This explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling `leave_chat` by emphasizing batch operation, which is a specific verb+resource+scope.

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 implies batch use through the plural 'chats' and 'одним вызовом' (in one call), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the singular `leave_chat` or any alternatives. There is no clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, only an implicit context.

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