Выйти из дела

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds a valuable behavioral constraint: the owner cannot leave and must transfer the case first. This goes beyond the annotation flags and provides real context about preconditions and limitations.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action followed by the exception and alternative. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple action with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core action, the key restriction, and the alternative. It does not mention edge cases like non-participant behavior, but given the annotations and simplicity, it is nearly complete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'case' with a clear description ('Дело: название или идентификатор'). The tool description does not add further detail about the parameter, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Убирает вас из числа участников дела' (removes you from case participants). It specifies the action (remove) and the resource (your membership in the case), distinguishing it from sibling tools like case_transfer, which transfers ownership, and members_remove, which likely removes other members.

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 explicitly states when the tool cannot be used ('Владелец выйти не может') and provides a clear alternative: 'сначала нужно передать дело другому участнику (case_transfer)'. This gives the agent actionable guidance on when to use this tool versus the case_transfer sibling.

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