Leave a case jury

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true sterilized, and the description goes well beyond that by disclosing error codes (409 already_voted, 404 not_a_juror, 409 voting_closed), the requeue-or-cancel side effect for matchmaking seats, and the exact return shape. This adds substantial behavioral context without contradicting 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?

Although the description is dense, every sentence carries essential operational information: core action, failure modes, required prerevocation, side effects, return shape, and sibling differentiation. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose, and the remaining details are organized around concrete cases rather than filler.

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 output schema, the description fully covers the return value as {left, requeued, case: {uuid, title, url}} and explains all major error states and side effects. Given the single parameter, the rich schema documentation, and the detailed behavioral notes, nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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% and the caseId parameter is already fully documented with its UUID pattern, meaning, and source functions. The description does not add meaningful new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Give up your own jury seat on a case.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling actions like tribeunal_leave_tribe, tribeunal_revoke_vote, and tribeunal_cancel_jury_duty by naming them specifically and stating what they do instead.

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 gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: revoke a vote first before leaving if already_voted, use tribeunal_cancel_jury_duty to stop searching for good, and use tribeunal_leave_tribe for leaving a tribe. It also documents the precise conditions under which the call is refused, so an agent can decide whether this tool is appropriate in a given state.

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