Leave a group

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by noting that rejoining requires being added or invited again, which is a meaningful side effect not implied by the annotations alone. It does not contradict any annotations and provides a useful consequence of the action.

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 two sentences with zero redundancy. It states the action upfront and adds the consequence in the second sentence. Every word contributes to the meaning, and the structure is efficient and front-loaded.

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 tool is simple, has no output schema, and the description covers the core action and its reversibility. The confirm parameter requirement is documented in the schema, so its omission from the description is acceptable. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and its impact, though it could optionally mention the confirm step for extra clarity.

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%, with all three parameters (accountId, groupId, confirm) already described in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific information, so it does not exceed the baseline expectation. The description does not compensate for any gaps because there are none.

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 action (make the account leave a group) with a specific verb and resource. It also clarifies the consequence of leaving (must be added or invited again), which differentiates it from tools like remove_group_participants that remove other members. The purpose is unambiguous and easily understood by an agent.

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 when to use this tool (when the account should leave a group) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as remove_group_participants or create_group. It provides no exclusions or conditions that would help an agent decide between this and similar group-management tools. The usage context is implicit rather than explicit.

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