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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the crucial host-only authorization constraint and names the source of the userId, going beyond annotation coverage. It doesn't state side effects like whether the peer can rejoin or whether the room persists, but the safety-relevant context is strong.

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?

Three short sentences. Host-only restriction, action, and parameter sourcing are all front-loaded. No 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?

For a single-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the essential authorization context and parameter acquisition. It could mention whether the kick is immediate or graceful and whether the peer receives notification, but the core information needed to invoke correctly is present.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter's type and description are already documented. The description adds meaningful context by pointing to srift_session_status as the source of a valid userId, which is beyond what the schema states. Baseline is 3; this earns a 4 for the operational sourcing hint.

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?

States a specific verb ('Disconnect and remove') and resource ('a peer from the active room'), and the title 'Kick Peer' anchors the action. Sibling tools cover session lifecycle (start/close/join) and moderation (approve/reject join), so the removal action is clearly distinct.

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?

Explicitly scopes with 'Host-only' and tells the agent exactly how to obtain the required argument: 'Get the peer's userId from srift_session_status (participants).' This is a direct when-to-use and how-to-use pairing with no ambiguity.

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