Leave Chat

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful facts the structured fields do not state as intent — that this is a mutation and that it requires confirm=True — which is real added context. However, it omits irreversibility, effect on chat history and participants, and permission prerequisites, so it is only partially transparent for a destructive-style operation.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no filler. It is terse to the point of being under-specified, but no sentence is wasted and the structure is easy to scan.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should do more work than two sentences. It never states the outcome of a successful leave, whether it is reversible, or what error conditions exist, leaving an agent unable to predict the result of the call.

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%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It clarifies confirm by tying it to the mutation (must be True), but chat_id gets no explanation of format, where it comes from (e.g., list_chats), or what happens with an invalid id. Half the parameter semantics remain undocumented in both places.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Leave the given chat"), which is unambiguous about the operation. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like update_chat_participants or list_chats, but the action is distinct enough that an agent can identify 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as update_chat_participants (removing others) or delete_chat_message. The only usage instruction is the confirm=True gate, which is a precondition rather than a when-to-use rule; nothing says what happens after leaving, whether the user can rejoin, or what permissions are needed.

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