Leave tribe

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

The description reveals that leaving a private tribe consumes the invitation, making rejoin impossible without a fresh invite, and that the owner may leave without affecting ownership, other members, or jury seats. It also documents 404 behavior, no-op behavior, and the exact return shape {tribe: uuid, member: false}. These details go well beyond the destructiveHint annotation.

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 sentences pack a great deal of information without redundancy: primary action, private/public nuance, owner leaving, errors/return, and alternatives. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and each clause 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?

The description covers the return value (though no output schema exists), error cases (404, no-op), side effects (invitation consumption, owner leaving), and routes to related tools. Nothing an agent needs to call this 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?

The sole parameter tribeId is fully described in the schema with format and source guidance (from tribeunal_list_tribes or tribeunal_get_tribe). The description adds context that the tribe must be one you belong to and that leaving is a no-op if you aren't a member, but this is more behavioral than parameter-specific. With 100% schema coverage, 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 'Leave a tribe you belong to,' a specific verb+resource statement. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming tribeunal_remove_tribe_member and tribeunal_leave_jury as alternative actions. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly differentiated.

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 alternatives for related actions: removing someone else (tribeunal_remove_tribe_member) and leaving a jury seat (tribeunal_leave_jury). It also specifies that rejoining a public tribe uses tribeunal_join_tribe, while private tribes require a fresh invite. This is clear when-to-use guidance.

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