Leave Room

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral transparency burden. It only notes that the bot leaves permanently, but omits details such as whether the operation is reversible, what happens if the bot is not a member, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds a key detail (permanence). It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 tool with one parameter, the description is somewhat minimal. It does not mention the response or result (no output schema), nor any prerequisites or error conditions. While the action is straightforward, the lack of such context could lead to ambiguity in certain edge cases, so completeness is moderate.

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 schema already provides a description for roomId (LINE Room ID starting with 'R'), so coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add further meaning to the parameter, such as how to obtain it or any constraints. Given full 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 clearly states the action ('Leave') and the specific resource ('LINE multi-person chat room'). It also notes the permanence of the action, which distinguishes it from temporary actions. The resource type is distinct from sibling tools like leave_group, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as leave_group. It implicitly indicates the target is a room, but lacks a direct comparison or condition to guide the agent. Since the sibling list includes leave_group, more explicit selection criteria would be beneficial.

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